Brief Fact Summary.
Boud filed suit against SDNCO, Inc. under claims that an express warranty existed for a faulty yacht that was advertised to have the “best performance” and “superb handling.”
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Under the Parol Evidence Rule, a plaintiff may not introduce evidence of express warranty after the plaintiff signed a sales agreement including a limited warranty.
In a yacht store owned by SDNCO, Inc. (SDNCO), Boud was given a brochure advertising yachts sold by KCS International, Inc. (KCS). KCS advertised that their yachts provided the “best performance” and “superb handling.” After purchasing the yacht, Boud experienced many mechanical and electrical issues. A limited warranty covered repairs, but the repairs did not fix the mechanical and engineering issues. Boud then sued under the claims that KCS’ advertisement provided an express warranty. The district court granted KCS’ motion for summary judgment.
Whether a plaintiff may introduce evidence of express warranty after the plaintiff signed a sales agreement including a limited warranty?
No. Puffery does not create an express warranty. The photograph made no affirmation of the quality of the yacht, or the yacht’s mechanical or electronic systems. Similarly, “best performance” and “superb handling” are subjective statements, rather than affirmations of fact. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Utah code requires that an affirmation of fact that creates the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty. An express warranty becomes unenforceable if the terms of the contract limits an express warranty.