 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Bell Sports9/7/2000
or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty.
Title 6, section 2-313(1) and (2) are identical to § 2-313(1) and (2) of the Uniform Commercial Code. The official commentary to that section under the U.C.C. indicates that the drafters intended its warranty provisions to be construed and applied liberally in favor of a buyer of goods. See U.C.C. § 2-313 cmt. 1 (1977) ("Express warranties rest on 'dickered' aspects of the individual bargain, and go so clearly to the essence of that bargain that words of a disclaimer in a form are repugnant to the basic dickered terms."); U.C.C. § 2-313 cmt. 3 ("In actual practice affirmations of fact made by a seller about the goods during a bargain are regarded as part of the description of those goods; hence no particular reliance on such statements need be shown in order to weave them into the fabric of the agreement."); U.C.C. § 2-313 cmt. 4 (" contract is normally a contract for a sale of something describable and described. A clause generally disclaiming 'all warranties, express or implied' cannot reduce the seller's obligation with respect to such description...."). The language of the U.C.C.'s official commentary may be applied by analogy to the sale of goods governed by 6 Del. C. § 2-313 in the reconciliation of any ensuing express warranty disputes. Thus, Bell's argument in this case that the express warranty terms in the manual are strictly limited to the "Five Year Limited Warranty" section, which also contained a purportedly effective disclaimer of those terms, is unfounded.
Formal wording is not necessary to create a warranty and a seller does not have to express any specific intention to create one. See Pack & Process, Inc. v. Celotex Corp., Del. Super., 503 A.2d 646, 658-69 (1985). Here the additional terms found in the manual's "Introduction" and "Helmet Performance" sections (stating that "the primary function of a helmet is to reduce the harmful effects of a blow to the head..." and "...the [helmet] is designed to absorb the force of a blow by spreading it over as wide an area of the outer shell as possible...") are textual representations constituting affirmations of fact upon which a buyer is entitled to rely. While this Court does not appear to have specifically addressed the issue, other courts have held that express warranties can arise from similar textual representations found in owners' manuals even where not specifically labeled as such. See e.g., Kinlaw v. Long Mfg. N.C., Inc., N.C. Supr., 259 S.E.2d 552, 557 (1979); Hawkins Constr. Co. v. Matthews Co., Neb. Supr., 209 N.W.2d 643, 654-55 (1973).
The restrictive provision of 6 Del. C. § 2-316(1), renders Bell's effort to disclaim any express warranties in the manual's "Five Year Limited Warranty" ineffective as a matter of law. See U.C.C. § 2-316(1) cmt. 1 (stating that "this section...seeks to protect a buyer from unexpected and unbargained language of disclaimer by denying effect to such language when inconsistent with language of express warranty...."). While the manual contains disclaimers warning potential users that the helmet cannot prevent all injuries, other representations were made to assure a potential buyer that the helmet's liner was designed to reduce the harmful effects of a blow to the head. Those representations constituted essential elements of a valid express warranty that may not be effectively disclaimed as a matter of law. See Jensen v. Seigel Mobile Homes Group, Idaho Supr., 668 P.2d 71-72 (1983) (holding that one principle of the law of warranty is to hold a seller responsi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|