Implied Warranty of Merchantability and Fitness for a Particular Purpose
/im-PLIED WAR-uhn-tee of mer-chuhnt-uh-BIL-uh-tee and FIT-nis for a pur-TIK-yuh-ler PUR-puhs/·doctrine
Also known as:implied warranties of merchantability and fitness · UCC 2-314 · UCC 2-315 · implied warranty of merchantability · implied warranty of fitness
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
1
An implied warranty arising by operation of law in a contract for the sale of goods when the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind that the goods are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.
2
A related implied warranty arises when the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Sense 1
1
Sense 1
An implied warranty arising by operation of law in a contract for the sale of goods when the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind that the goods are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.
Sources & Authorities· 1 primary source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Uniform Acts
Practice Questions
Practice Essays
Examples6
Subsequent Buyer Seeks Builder Warranty
Logan purchased a home three years after East Wind completed construction and sold it to the first owner. The solar panel roof penetrations leaked and caused unsafe overheating. Logan sued East Wind for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The court dismissed the claim because the home was no longer new at the time of the second sale and Logan lacked privity with the builder.
Seller Attempts Warranty Disclaimer
Apex mailed an acknowledgment confirming Metro's order for brake pads and added a conspicuous clause stating there are no warranties extending beyond the description on the face of the document. Metro later discovered defective pads. The court held the disclaimer ineffective because it failed to mention merchantability and was not conspicuous as required to exclude the implied warranty.
Jury Verdict on Warranty and Tort Claims
A buyer sued Ford after a Bronco II rolled over during an unintended but foreseeable use. The jury found the vehicle not defective for negligence and strict liability purposes but found a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The court upheld the verdict because the warranty claim addresses fitness for foreseeable uses even when the product is not defective under tort standards.
Frequently Asked3
When does an implied warranty of merchantability arise under the UCC?+
The warranty arises automatically in a contract for the sale of goods if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Merchantable goods must be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used and must pass without objection in the trade.
Supporting sources
What must a seller do to effectively disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability?+
To exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability the language must mention merchantability and in the case of a writing must be conspicuous. A general statement that there are no warranties extending beyond the description on the face of the document is insufficient unless it meets these requirements.
Supporting sources
Sense 2
2
Sense 2
A related implied warranty arises when the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods.
Sources & Authorities· 1 primary source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Uniform Acts
Practice Questions
Practice Essays
Frequently Asked1
How does the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose differ from merchantability?+
The fitness warranty requires that the seller have reason to know the buyer's particular purpose and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment. Merchantability requires only that goods be fit for ordinary purposes and does not depend on the buyer's specific reliance or the seller's knowledge of a special use.
Denny v. Ford Motor Co.87 N.Y.2d 248, 639 N.Y.S.2d 250, 662 N.E.2d 730, 736 (1995)
Tool Merchantability in Workplace Use
Workers used pneumatic tools purchased from Chicago Pneumatic in ordinary industrial applications. The tools caused injury due to defects that made them unfit for those routine tasks. The court held that the implied warranty of merchantability required the tools to be fit for ordinary purposes even if the buyer had not specified a particular purpose.
Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.694 A.2d 1319, 1332, 1334-1335 (Conn. 1997)
Cigarette Warranty Preemption Dispute
A smoker sued Liggett alleging that cigarettes failed to meet the implied warranty of merchantability because they caused cancer. The court addressed whether federal cigarette labeling laws preempted the state warranty claim. The analysis turned on whether the warranty claim imposed requirements beyond the federal standard.
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.893 F.2d 541 (3d Cir.1990), affirmed in part and reversed in part, 505 U.S. 504 (1992)
Flexible Hose Fitness for Purpose
A buyer purchased flexible gas piping from Omega Flex for use in a residential heating system. The piping ruptured under ordinary pressure. The court evaluated whether the implied warranty of merchantability was breached because the goods were unfit for their ordinary purpose of safely conveying gas in home installations.
Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014)
Can a broad disclaimer in a seller's acceptance form become part of a contract between merchants?+
A broad disclaimer of all implied warranties is treated as a material alteration. It does not become part of the contract unless the buyer expressly agrees to it. The buyer may still pursue a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
Supporting sources
if the product is not fit for an unintended but reasonably foreseeable use. We conclude that it may. Plaintiffs Kay and Denny purchased a Ford Bronco II in 1985. The Bronco II was…
, violations of consumer protection statutes, and conspiracy); see also Allgood , 80 F.3d at 171-72 (rejecting failure-to-wam claim against tobacco companies based on inadequate proof of…
for the
purpose
for which a product was acquired, the defendant, the maker and seller to the plaintiff of a hat, was responsible in damages for plaintiff’s allergic reaction to the hat…
Civil ProcedureJurisdiction and venue · Federal subject-matter jurisdiction (federal question, diversity, supplemental, and removal)UBEFoundational