Week 4 of the semester: Midpoint, time to ensure you're on track.
Readings are lighter this week, use this opportunity to catch up.
Check your routine: eating, sleeping, meditation, worship, all crucial for well-being.
Weeks 4-12 are the most difficult; avoid losing ground.
Seek help or encouragement if needed.
Lecture Breakdown
Lecture 1: Recap of the last in-person class.
Lecture 2: Singer v. DuPont - Conflict between express and implied warranties.
Lecture 3: Office Supply Co v. Basic Four - Rules for waiving/disclaiming warranties under the UCC.
UCC Warranties - General Concepts
Warranties are a way of allocating risk.
Strict Liability: Unlike negligence or fraud, intent is irrelevant.
If a product doesn't conform to specifications, the warrantor is liable.
Types of Warranties
Express Warranties: UCC 2-313
Statements or assurances by the seller about the quality/characteristics of goods.
Implied Warranties:
Assurances concerning the seller's title and basic quality of goods.
Attach automatically unless disclaimed.
Implied Warranty of Merchantability: UCC 2-314
Applies when a merchant sells goods, and the warranty isn't disclaimed.
Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose
Can apply even if the seller isn't a merchant, additional requirements apply.
Daughtry v. Ash: Express Warranty
Issue: Whether a post-transaction jewelry appraisal constituted an express warranty about diamond quality (VVS diamonds).
Key Points:
Formal words not required: "warrant" or "guarantee" are not necessary to create an express warranty.
An affirmation of fact creates a warranty.
Merely affirming value or stating an opinion does not create a warranty.
Superior knowledge: If someone with superior knowledge makes a statement without qualifying it as an opinion, it's treated as a statement of fact, incurring liability as an express warranty.
Basis of the bargain:
Buyer doesn't need to show reliance, only that the representations were part of the basis of the bargain.
Post-formation modification:
The appraisal became part of the contract through a post-formation modification.
UCC 2-209: An exception to the common law rule requiring consideration for modifications. Modifications are allowed without consideration under the UCC.
Webster v. Blue Ship Tea Room: Implied Warranty of Merchantability
Issue: Breach of implied warranty of merchantability when fish chowder contained a fishbone.
Court Ruling:
The presence of a bone in fish chowder is not unexpected.
No breach of warranty because fish chowder with bones is fit for its ordinary purpose.
Leo v. Holtville: Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose
Facts: Leals (buyers) and Holtvolts (sellers) had a mentor-protege relationship regarding horses. Leals wanted to start a breeding program. Holtvolts advised against their initial choice and suggested McHugh Jebask, a horse with undisclosed health problems. The horse died, and Leals sued.
Requirements for Implied Warranty of Fitness:
Seller must know the buyer's particular purpose for the goods.
Seller must know the buyer is relying on the seller's skill/judgment.
The buyer must actually rely on the seller's skill/judgment.
Application to Leo v. Holtville:
Holtvolts knew Leals were relying on them due to their mentor-protege relationship.
Leals originally wanted a different horse but relied on Holtvolts' advice to purchase McHugh Jebask.
Upcoming Lectures
Lecture 2: Singer v. DuPont – Implied warranty alongside an express warranty.
Lecture 3: Office Supply Co v. Basic Four – How to effectively disclaim warranties.