 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ford Motor Co. v. General Accident Insurance Co.9/10/2001
Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, in which Petitioner seemingly acknowledged that Respondent had sued Petitioner "on several theories: breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of the warranty of merchantability, negligence, and strict liability." Petitioner's attorney there did not assert that Respondent's argument regarding an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose theory was not before the trial court; instead, it appears to us that Petitioner recognized a second claim for implied warranty in stating that Respondent had sued on several claims, including "implied warranty breach of the warranty of merchantability." On 2 August 1999, the trial court judge generally denied Respondent's revisory motion. From this record, it appears that the trial judge considered and decided the issues of both implied warranty theories generally.
B. Sufficient Evidence
Petitioner alternatively argues that there was insufficient evidence to support a claim of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The Court of Special Appeals determined that, as to the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, § 2-315, supra note 8, Respondent did not have to prove a defect in order to prevail under this theory. International Motors, 133 Md. App. at 276, 754 A.2d at 1118. The intermediate appellate court surmised:
Ford manufactures chassis cabs with knowledge that they will be modified in some form or another. Ford was aware that Elzenheimer had, in the past, purchased Ford chassis cabs for the purpose of turning them into tow trucks. Thus, Ford impliedly warranted that the truck would be fit for usage as a tow truck.
Here, the evidence showed that Ford breached its implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose when (1) General [Accident]'s insured was using the truck as a tow truck, and (2) the truck unexpectedly caught on fire. The circuit court was persuaded that the fire started in the engine compartment of the truck while the truck was idling. The truck was being used "normally" at that time, and trucks do not normally catch on fire while idling. International Motors, 133 Md. App. at 27-77, 754 A.2d at 1119.
It is our view that the Court of Special Appeals improperly analyzed what the required elements of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose are.
i. The Elements of § 2-315
An implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is conceded generally to have three affirmative elements:
(1) The seller must have reason to know the buyer's particular purpose.
(2) The seller must have reason to know that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to furnish appropriate goods.
(3) The buyer must, in fact, rely upon the seller's skill or judgment. James J. White & Robert S. Summers, 1 Uniform Commercial Code § 9-10, at 528 (4th ed. 1995); see Beverly Clark & Christopher Smith, The Law of Product Warranties, 6.01 (1984); Ronald Anderson, 3A Uniform Commercial Code, § 2- 315:76, at 46-47 (1995).
According to the Official Comment to § 2-315, a particular purpose means:
A "particular purpose" differs from the ordinary purpose for which the goods are used in that it envisages a specific use by the buyer which is peculiar to the nature of his business whereas the ordinary purposes for which goods are used are those envisaged in the concept of merchantability and to uses which are customarily made of the goods in question. For example, shoes are generally used for the purpose of walking upon ordinary ground, but a seller may know that a particular pair was selected to
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|