Deals with how courts construe the presence of multiple warranties (express and implied).
Plaintiff (Singer) sued to recover losses based on breach of express warranty and implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
In 1972, Singer wanted to set up a new paint system (electrodeposition) for metal used in air conditioning systems.
Electrodeposition: A method to produce metallic coatings using electric current on conductive metal immersed in a paint solution containing salt, which binds to the metal.
DuPont contracted to supply Singer with paint for a 22,000-gallon tank in September and October.
Singer also contracted with other companies for other steps in the process.
From the start, the system didn't work properly; the metal emerged with streaks or blotches instead of a uniform finish.
DuPont supervised the installation and spent six months trying to fix the problem without success.
In April 1974, Singer replaced DuPont paint with Sherwin-Williams paint, and the system worked fine.
Singer then sued DuPont, alleging breach of warranty.
The case was submitted to the jury only on the implied warranty theory, and the jury awarded Singer over $100,000.
Issues Before the Court
Does the existence of an express warranty preclude Singer from asserting a claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose?
If not, was there adequate evidence to support the jury's determination that DuPont breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose?
Parties' Arguments
Plaintiff (Singer)
The blotches and streaks were caused by DuPont's paint.
The contract contained an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose under UCC 2-315.
The paint did not meet their purpose of working in the electroplating production.
Contractual provision: "None of the provisions or remedies herein are in lieu of any claims for damages. Buyer may have it law or equity under the Uniform Commercial Code or otherwise for the breach of any contracts or warranties by buyer, which rights are specifically reserved by buyer."
Defendant (DuPont)
The problem was caused by the substrate (metal) Singer was using.
Their paint met the express specifications in the contract.
There cannot be an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose where there is an express warranty.
Court's Application of the UCC
The Illinois adoption of the UCC governs the case.
Cites UCC 2-316(2) and Comment 9, which discuss situations where a buyer gives precise specifications to the seller.
Comment 9: "The warranty of fitness for a particular purpose would not normally arise in such a situation as there is usually no reliance on the seller by the buyer."
The court distinguishes the case because DuPont recommended and supplied the paint specifications and remained in control of the paint tank.
Court's Reasoning
The court notes that Anderson's Uniform Commercial Code supports the plaintiff's argument.
The fact that a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose does or does not exist has no bearing on any other warranty or theory of product liability.
The court states that the UCC changed the rules and that unless an exclusion of the implied warranty of fitness is specifically and conspicuously excluded, courts often find that such implied and express warranties can be cumulative and coexist within the same agreement (UCC 2-317).
UCC 2-317: "Warranties whether expressed or implied shall be construed as consistent with each other and as cumulative, but if such construction is unreasonable, the intention of the party shall determine which warranty is dominant."
The court distinguishes the facts from cases where the buyer failed to follow express warranty specifications, noting that DuPont was in control of the paint.
There was no enforceable disclaimer of an implied warranty, and the UCC disfavors disclaimers of warranty.
The court focuses on Singer's reliance on DuPont, aligning with the three-part test for implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose:
The seller must know that the buyer is relying on it to select and furnish the goods.
Reliance on a specific knowledge.
Actual reliance.
The question of whether an implied warranty exists is a factual determination for the jury.
The better rule when there remains an issue of contractual intent is to submit the issue to the jury unless the evidence is so clear that no reasonable person would determine the issue but one way.
Cumulative Effect of Implied and Express Warranties
An implied warranty of fitness is not necessarily excluded by the presence of an express warranty.
Satisfaction of an express warranty would not preclude the jury from further consideration of an alleged implied warranty.
The jury found a breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
The court found sufficient evidence to show that Du Pont's paint was not suitable for Singer's use
DuPont's Strategic Blunder
The court opens the door to the argument that this was not a UCC transaction at all, as it could be seen as a contract for services rather than goods.
This argument was not made by DuPont.
Key Takeaway
The presence of an express warranty does not impact whether there is an implied warranty.
For the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, meet the three-part test unless it is disclaimed.