FACTUAL BACKGROUND: – See your memorandum attached
QUESTION (S) PRESENTED:
1. The issue is whether or not the used farm tractor that Montpelier Equipment Sales (Montpelier) sold to Mr. Rogers was subject to an implied warranty of merchantability; and
2. If an implied warranty existed, what are the damages?
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
Implied Warranty: Merchantability
Mr. Rogers may be able to argue that the goods sold were not merchantable and an implied warranty existed. The Uniform Commercial Code §2-314 articulates the standard for an implied warranty. Under §2-314, there is an implied warranty of merchantability when:
“[u]nless excluded or modified (Section 2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied …show more content…
Rogers is arguing that the farm tractor was not fit for its ordinary purpose and that when he purchased it, he didn’t believe that the engine should have blown so soon. Montpelier may try and argue that Mr. Rogers used the tractor for offering hayrides, which was not the intended way to use the tractor. And Montpelier may also say that the buyer knew that the tractor was used and purchased it at his own risk. This analysis would not completely answer the issue.
Implied Warranty: Exclusion
If we were to look at the language of U.C.C. Section 2-316, it states test to determine whether or not the seller excluded the implied warranty. An implied warranty existed unless Montpelier can show that the warranty was excluded. Under Section 2-316, an implied warranty of merchantability may be excluded or modified if:
“(2) [s]ubject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it, the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, “there are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face …show more content…
Rogers has a pretty good case to show that the seller did not adequately provide an exclusion of the implied warranty. Had Montpelier provided that exclusion in writing and mentioned the merchantability of the tractor in a clear concise way, they may have had a strong defense. In regard to potential damages, we turn to § 2-715, which states: “[i]ncidental damages resulting from the sellers breach include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation and care and custody of goods rightfully rejected, any commercially reasonable charges, expenses or commissions in connection with effecting cover and any other reasonable expense incident to the delay or other breach.”
Mr. Rogers could ask for damages resulting in expenses incurred. Those expenses could include towing, inspection or diagnostics, transportation, storage and repair of the tractor. I would recommend that Mr. Rogers compile a list of expenses. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to let me
QUESTION (S) PRESENTED:
1. The issue is whether or not the used farm tractor that Montpelier Equipment Sales (Montpelier) sold to Mr. Rogers was subject to an implied warranty of merchantability; and
2. If an implied warranty existed, what are the damages?
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
Implied Warranty: Merchantability
Mr. Rogers may be able to argue that the goods sold were not merchantable and an implied warranty existed. The Uniform Commercial Code §2-314 articulates the standard for an implied warranty. Under §2-314, there is an implied warranty of merchantability when:
“[u]nless excluded or modified (Section 2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied …show more content…
Rogers is arguing that the farm tractor was not fit for its ordinary purpose and that when he purchased it, he didn’t believe that the engine should have blown so soon. Montpelier may try and argue that Mr. Rogers used the tractor for offering hayrides, which was not the intended way to use the tractor. And Montpelier may also say that the buyer knew that the tractor was used and purchased it at his own risk. This analysis would not completely answer the issue.
Implied Warranty: Exclusion
If we were to look at the language of U.C.C. Section 2-316, it states test to determine whether or not the seller excluded the implied warranty. An implied warranty existed unless Montpelier can show that the warranty was excluded. Under Section 2-316, an implied warranty of merchantability may be excluded or modified if:
“(2) [s]ubject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it, the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, “there are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face …show more content…
Rogers has a pretty good case to show that the seller did not adequately provide an exclusion of the implied warranty. Had Montpelier provided that exclusion in writing and mentioned the merchantability of the tractor in a clear concise way, they may have had a strong defense. In regard to potential damages, we turn to § 2-715, which states: “[i]ncidental damages resulting from the sellers breach include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation and care and custody of goods rightfully rejected, any commercially reasonable charges, expenses or commissions in connection with effecting cover and any other reasonable expense incident to the delay or other breach.”
Mr. Rogers could ask for damages resulting in expenses incurred. Those expenses could include towing, inspection or diagnostics, transportation, storage and repair of the tractor. I would recommend that Mr. Rogers compile a list of expenses. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to let me