Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff brought suit against the seller and manufacturers of a fishing boat alleging that Defendants breached an express warranty and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Plaintiff claimed that the boat he was sold was significantly slower than what was allegedly represented to him.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Express warranties are created when the seller makes an affirmation of fact or a promise to the buyer which becomes part of the basis of the bargain, or when the seller makes a description of certain goods that becomes part of the basis of the bargain. All goods that are sold contain an implied warranty that such goods are merchantable.
Whether the representations made to Plaintiff in the prop matrixes and brochures were express warranties.
Whether the boat’s failure to reach a maximum speed of 30 mph was a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
The Court held that express warranties are created when the seller makes an affirmation of fact or a promise to the buyer which becomes part of the basis of the bargain, or when the seller makes a description of certain goods that becomes part of the basis of the bargain. Mere opinions or commendations of a seller’s products are not express warranties. The Court ruled that since the statements contained in the prop matrixes were not express warranties about the performance capacity of the boat because the documents explicitly referred to a boat that carried less weight and had different propeller sizes than the one Plaintiff purchased. Further, the brochure which described the boat being one that “delivers the kind of performance you need to get to the prime offshore fishing grounds” was a simply a statement of opinion or commendation made by the seller, and that such statements are not, standing alone, express warranties.
With respect to implied warranties, the Court held that the goods must “be such as would pass without objection in the trade and as are fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used.” Despite the fact that Plaintiff was unable to use the boat for offshore fishing, the Court found no evidence from which to conclude that the boat generally was not merchantable as an offshore fishing boat.
The Court held that Plaintiff failed to introduce evidence showing what the standard of merchantability in the offshore fishing trade was and whether a significant segment of the buying public would object to buying the goods.
Nor did the evidence support the conclusion that the boat was not fit for its ordinary purpose as an offshore fishing boat, because Plaintiff had used the boat for 850 hours, and there was nothing in the record to indicate that boat’s which possess the speed capabilities that Plaintiff’s boat did are unacceptable as offshore fishing boats.
Finally, the Court said there was no breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Such a warrant exists when seller has a 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. Plaintiff contended that particular purpose for which the boat was purchased for was to travel at speeds of 30 miles per hour. The Court disagreed and held that Plaintiff had failed to introduce evidence showing that he made this requirement known to the seller.
Ordinarily, whether or not the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose arises in any individual case is a question of fact to be determined by the circumstances of the contracting between the parties.View Full Point of Law