Implied warranty

Last updated

In common law jurisdictions, an implied warranty is a contract law term for certain assurances that are presumed to be made in the sale of products or real property, due to the circumstances of the sale. These assurances are characterized as warranties regardless of whether the seller has expressly promised them orally or in writing. They include an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, an implied warranty of merchantability for products, implied warranty of workmanlike quality for services, and an implied warranty of habitability for a home.

Contents

The warranty of merchantability is implied, unless expressly disclaimed by name, or the sale is identified with the phrase "as is" or "with all faults". To be "merchantable", the goods must reasonably conform to an ordinary buyer's expectations, i.e., they are what they say they are. For example, a fruit that looks and smells good but has hidden defects would violate the implied warranty of merchantability if its quality does not meet the standards for such fruit "as passes ordinarily in the trade". In Massachusetts consumer protection law, it is illegal to disclaim this warranty on household goods sold to consumers.

The warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is implied when a buyer relies upon the seller to select the goods to fit a specific request. For example, this warranty is violated when a buyer asks a mechanic to provide snow tires and receives tires that are unsafe to use in snow. This implied warranty can also be expressly disclaimed by name, thereby shifting the risk of unfitness back to the buyer.

Another implied warranty is the warranty of title, which implies that the seller of goods has the right to sell them (e.g., they are not stolen, or patent infringements, or already sold to someone else). Theoretically, this saves a buyer from having to "pay twice" for a product, if it is confiscated by the rightful owner, but only if the seller can be found and makes restitution.

Fitness for a particular purpose

An implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose occurs if a seller knows or has reason to know of a particular purpose for which some item is being purchased by the buyer. The seller then guarantees that the item is fit for that particular purpose. [1] [2] [3]

International sales law

In international sales law, the obligation is found in Article 35(2)(b) of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.

Australia

In Australia, the obligation is in section 55 of Schedule 2 ("The Australian Consumer Law") of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) for consumers. The Sale of Goods Acts in each state also implies the warranty and is not limited to consumer contracts. [4]

United States

In the United States, the requirement for an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (sometimes shortened to warranty of fitness) is found in UCC   § 2-315 . [5] Absent an exclusion or modification pursuant to UCC   § 2-316 , [6] the warranty applies to transactions for goods where the buyer is relying on the seller's guidance or expertise to select "suitable goods" [5] that meet that buyer's particular purpose or requirements.

Merchantability

An implied warranty of merchantability is a warranty implied by law that goods are reasonably fit for the general purpose for which they are sold.

International sales law

In international sales law, merchantability forms part of the ordinary purpose of the goods. According to Article 35(2)(a) of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, a seller must provide goods fit for their ordinary purpose.

Australia

In Australia, the obligation is in section 54 of Schedule 2 ("The Australian Consumer Law") of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). Each State and Territory now applies the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) as the law of the state. That has created a uniform consumer protection law across the entire country.

United Kingdom

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 states that in a contract for the sale of goods it is an implied condition that the goods supplied are of merchantable quality. The implied condition is excluded if any defects are drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is concluded or if the buyer examines the goods before the contract is concluded and finds, or ought to have found, a defect. [7]

United States

In the United States, the requirement for an implied warranty of merchantability is found in UCC   § 2-314 . [8] The warranty applies to merchants, as defined by UCC   § 2-104(1) , [9] as opposed to casual sellers.

As prescribed by UCC   § 2-314(2) , [8] goods are merchantable if they meet the following conditions:

  1. The goods must conform (pass without objection [8] ) to the standards of the trade as applicable to the contract for sale.
  2. If fungible, the goods must be of average quality within the description.
  3. The goods must be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used even if the buyer ordered them for another use.
  4. The goods must be uniform as to quality and quantity within the tolerances as might be specified in the sales contract.
  5. The goods must be contained, packaged, and labeled per the contract for sale.
  6. The goods must conform to the promise[s] or affirmation[s] of fact made on the container or label if any [exist] even if not so specified by the contract for sale.

If the merchandise is sold with an express "guarantee," the terms of the implied warranty of merchantability fills the gaps left by that guarantee. If the terms of the express guarantee are not specified, they will be considered to be the terms of the implied warranty of merchantability. The UCC allows sellers to disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability, provided the disclaimer is made conspicuously and the disclaimer explicitly uses the term "merchantability" in the disclaimer. UCC   § 2-316(2) [6] Some states, however, have implemented the UCC so that it cannot be disclaimed.

Habitability

An implied warranty of habitability, generally, is a warranty implied by law (in some states) that by leasing or buying a residential property, the lessor or seller is promising that the property is suitable to be lived in. [10] The doctrine is intended as a protection for tenants in a less advantageous bargaining position than the landlord. [11] The warranty of habitability can be breached if there is no heat, hot water, or other essential services. Safety issues like no smoke alarm or other fire code issues can also be considered to make a dwelling uninhabitable. In some cases, courts have ruled that the warranty also covers cracked walls, peeling paint, and leaks. [10] If the municipality in which the property is located prohibits habitation without a certificate of occupancy, but has not issued such a certificate with respect to the property, the unlawfulness of that habitation renders the property uninhabitable as a matter of law. The breach of the implied warranty of habitability can be used to legally break a lease. If the factors have been created or are controllable by the landlord and he or she has not fixed them despite ample written notification, this situation can also be considered constructive eviction, which allows the tenant to break the lease, and may also allow the tenant to sue for damages in some jurisdictions.

Disclaimer

In some jurisdictions, an implied warranty in a sales contract can be expressly disclaimed by the use of specific language such as the words "as is" or "with all faults".

United States

In the United States, a disclaimer must be conspicuous in the contract, such as in a different kind of print or font that makes it stand out. [1] On the other hand, express warranty, or any affirmation of fact or promise to the buyer or description of the good, oral or written, can be negated or limited only if such disclaimers are reasonable. UCC   § 2-316(1) [6]

Some jurisdictions, however, limit the ability of sellers or manufacturers to disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness, such as Massachusetts. (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 106: Section 2-316A). Furthermore, the warranty of habitability generally cannot be disclaimed. [12] [13]

Contractual language can also limit the remedies available for breach of an implied warranty such as by capping recoverable damages or limiting the legal remedy to a replacement of a defective item. However, such a term can be found to be unconscionable. For example, if a defective product causes a personal injury, a contractual provision limiting recovery in such a case will be deemed prima facie unconscionable. UCC   § 2-719(3) [14]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uniform Commercial Code</span> Uniform Act governing sales and transactions

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), first published in 1952, is one of a number of uniform acts that have been established as law with the goal of harmonizing the laws of sales and other commercial transactions across the United States through UCC adoption by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of the United States.

Caveat emptor is Latin for "Let the buyer beware". It has become a proverb in English. Generally, caveat emptor is the contract law principle that controls the sale of real property after the date of closing, but may also apply to sales of other goods. The phrase caveat emptor and its use as a disclaimer of warranties arises from the fact that buyers typically have less information than the seller about the good or service they are purchasing. This quality of the situation is known as 'information asymmetry'. Defects in the good or service may be hidden from the buyer, and only known to the seller.

In law, a warranty is an expressed or implied promise or assurance of some kind. The term's meaning varies across legal subjects. In property law, it refers to a covenant by the grantor of a deed. In insurance law, it refers to a promise by the purchaser of an insurance about the thing or person to be insured.

Nemo dat quod non habet, literally meaning "no one can give what they do not have", is a legal rule, sometimes called the nemo dat rule, that states that the purchase of a possession from someone who has no ownership right to it also denies the purchaser any ownership title. It is equivalent to the civil (continental) Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet rule, which means "one cannot transfer to another more rights than they have". The rule usually stays valid even if the purchaser does not know that the seller has no right to claim ownership of the object of the transaction ; however, in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners. The possession of the good of title will be with the original owner.

"As is" is a phrase used to indicate the existing condition of something without any modifications or improvements. The term is employed in legal, business, and consumer settings to establish that an item or property is being sold or provided in its current condition, with no warranties or guarantees regarding its quality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act</span> United States federal law governing warranties on consumer products

The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act is a United States federal law. Enacted in 1975, the federal statute governs warranties on consumer products. The law does not require any product to have a warranty, but if it does have a warranty, the warranty must comply with this law. The law was created to fix problems as a result of manufacturers using disclaimers on warranties in an unfair or misleading manner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982</span> Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom

The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that requires traders to provide services to a proper standard of workmanship. Furthermore, if a definite completion date or a price has not been fixed then the work must be completed within a reasonable time and for a reasonable charge. The Act was partially superseded by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, insofar as that Act applies, i.e. between trader and consumers, for contracts entered into from 1 October 2015. The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 as amended remains in force in England, Wales, Northern Ireland; only Part IA of the Act, which creates provisions analogous to Part I of the Act, and Part III, which deals with the Act's commencement etc., apply in Scotland.

<i>Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.</i>

In Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an automobile manufacturer's attempt to use an express warranty that disclaimed an implied warranty of merchantability was invalid.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sale of Goods Act 1979</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which regulated English contract law and UK commercial law in respect of goods that are sold and bought. The Act consolidated the original Sale of Goods Act 1893 and subsequent legislation, which in turn had codified and consolidated the law. Since 1979, there have been numerous minor statutory amendments and additions to the 1979 act. It was replaced for some aspects of consumer contracts from 1 October 2015 by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 but remains the primary legislation underpinning business-to-business transactions involving selling or buying goods.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contractual term</span> Any provision forming part of a contract

A contractual term is "any provision forming part of a contract". Each term gives rise to a contractual obligation, the breach of which may give rise to litigation. Not all terms are stated expressly and some terms carry less legal gravity as they are peripheral to the objectives of the contract.

<i>Grant v Australian Knitting Mills</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills is a landmark case in consumer and negligence law from 1935, holding that where a manufacturer knows that a consumer may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care, the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care. It continues to be cited as an authority in legal cases, and used as an example for students studying law.

Contractual terms in English law is a topic which deals with four main issues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States contract law</span>

Contract law regulates the obligations established by agreement, whether express or implied, between private parties in the United States. The law of contracts varies from state to state; there is nationwide federal contract law in certain areas, such as contracts entered into pursuant to Federal Reclamation Law.

In English law, implied terms are default rules for contracts on points where the terms which contracting parties expressly choose are silent, or mandatory rules which operate to override terms that the parties may have themselves chosen. The purpose of implied terms is often to supplement a contractual agreement in the interest of making the deal effective for the purpose of business, to achieve fairness between the parties or to relieve hardship.

<i>Friend v. Childs Dining Hall Co.</i>

Friend v. Childs Dining Hall Co., 231 Mass. 65, 120 N.E. 407 (1918), is part of a progression of cases that influenced the products liability synthesis that emerged in the 1930s. These cases influenced Judge Cardozo's argument in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. that a person could be liable for a defective product to someone other than the immediate purchaser. This created the law of product liability.

<i>Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co.</i>

Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co., 235 N.Y. 468, 139 N.E. 576 (1922), was a products liability case before the New York Court of Appeals. The Court held that a plaintiff cannot recover from a defendant based on implied warranty when she does not have contractual privity with him; thus, a plaintiff cannot recover from a defendant who sold her employer food unfit for consumption, because the defendant's implied warranty extended only to the employer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Supply of Goods Act 1973 was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that provided implied terms in contracts for the supply of goods and for hire-purchase agreements, and limited the use of exclusion clauses. The result of a joint report by the England and Wales Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, First Report on Exemption Clauses, the Act was granted royal assent on 18 April 1973 and came into force a month later. It met with a mixed reaction from academics, who praised the additional protection it offered while at the same time questioning whether it was enough; several aspects of the Act's draftsmanship and implementation were also called into question. Much of the Act was repealed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which included many of the 1973 Act's provisions.

The South African law of sale is an area of the legal system in that country that describes rules applicable to a contract of sale, generally described as a contract whereby one person agrees to deliver to another the free possession of a thing in return for a price in money.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Missives of Sale (Scots law)</span> Scottish trading law

The missives of sale, in Scots property law, are a series of formal letters between the two parties, the Buyer and the Seller, containing the contract of sale for the transfer of corporeal heritable property (land) in Scotland. The term 'land' in this article includes buildings and other structures upon land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Disposition (Scots law)</span> Deed transferring ownership of heritable property

A disposition in Scots law is a formal deed transferring ownership of corporeal heritable property. It acts as the conveyancing stage as the second of three stages required in order to voluntarily transfer ownership of land in Scotland. The three stages are:

  1. The Contractual Stage
  2. The Conveyancing Stage
  3. The Registration Stage

References

  1. 1 2 Primack MA. (2009). Representations, Warranties and Covenants: Back to the Basics in Contracts. National Law Review.
  2. ↑ "Difference between a Guarantee and Warranty". Archived from the original on November 19, 2016. Retrieved December 5, 2016.
  3. ↑ Ferara LN, Philips J, Runnicles J. (2007). Some Differences in Law and Practice Between U.K. and U.S. Stock Purchase Agreements Archived 2013-05-14 at the Wayback Machine . Jones Day Publications.
  4. ↑ s14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1895 (WA), s19 of the Goods Act 1958 (Vic), s19 of the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW)
  5. 1 2 UCC   § 2-315
  6. 1 2 3 UCC   § 2-316
  7. ↑ Sale of Goods Act 1979, sect. 14(2)
  8. 1 2 3 UCC   § 2-314
  9. ↑ UCC   § 2-104
  10. 1 2 Bolander, Donald O. (1990). The New Webster's Library of Practical Information: Family Legal Guide. Lexicon Publications. p. 45. ISBN   0-7172-4500-4.
  11. ↑ Sprankling, John G. (2021). Property : a contemporary approach. Raymond R. Coletta (Fifth ed.). St. Paul, MN. ISBN   978-1-68467-717-7. OCLC   1225976169.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  12. ↑ Dutenhaver, Katheryn M. (1978). "Non-Waiver of the Implied Warranty of Habitability in Residential Leases". Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal. 10: 41. Retrieved 15 December 2017.
  13. ↑ Powell, Frona M. (1989). "Disclaimers of Implied Warranty in the Sale of New Homes". Villanova Law Review. 34: 1132–1153. Retrieved 15 December 2017.
  14. ↑ UCC   § 2-719
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.