Quick Summary
John R. Crow (plaintiff) purchased a boat and claimed that Bayliner Marine Corporation (Bayliner) (defendant) breached warranties related to discrepancies in boat speed representations.
However, the court found no evidence supporting Crow’s claims and reversed the trial court’s judgment.
Facts of the Case
John R. Crow (plaintiff) purchased a 3486 Trophy Convertible boat manufactured by Bayliner Marine Corporation (Bayliner) (defendant). Before buying the boat, Crow asked a sales representative about its maximum speed. The representative provided Crow with prop matrixes and documents included in the dealer’s manual, which listed the recommended propeller sizes and top speeds for each model of boat sold by Bayliner.
The prop matrixes listed the maximum speed for Crow’s boat as 30 mph with a specific propeller size. However, Crow’s boat was equipped with a propeller of a different size.
Crow made various repairs and modifications to the boat to increase its speed capacity, but could not surpass 17 mph. He filed a claim against Bayliner, alleging breach of express warranties and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.
Procedural History
- Crow filed a motion for judgment against Tidewater Yacht Agency, Inc., Bayliner, and Brunswick Corporation.
- Crow prevailed in the trial court on the counts of breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranties.
- The trial court awarded Crow damages of $135,000 plus prejudgment interest.
- Bayliner appealed.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s ruling that Bayliner breached an express warranty and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.
Rule of Law
Express warranties arise from promises, guarantees, or factual statements integral to the contract. Implied warranties of merchantability mandate goods to be fit for their intended purpose and acceptable to most buyers.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court found that the statements in the prop matrixes did not constitute an express warranty by Bayliner about the boat’s performance capabilities. The figures in the prop matrixes referred to a boat with different propellers and less equipment weight.
The sales brochure’s statement that the boat delivers the performance needed for offshore fishing was deemed an opinion, not an express warranty. Regarding the implied warranty of merchantability, Crow failed to establish the standard of merchantability in the trade or that a significant portion of the buying public would object to purchasing a boat with the speed capability of Crow’s boat.
The evidence also did not support the conclusion that the boat was unfit for its ordinary purpose as an offshore fishing boat. Furthermore, Crow did not inform the seller of his particular requirement for a boat capable of a maximum speed of 30 mph, which is necessary to establish an implied warranty of fitness for a specific purpose.
Conclusion
The evidence did not support the trial court’s ruling that Bayliner breached any warranties. Therefore, the trial court’s judgment was reversed.
Key Takeaways
- Express warranties require promises or factual statements that become part of the basis of the bargain.
- Implied warranties of merchantability require goods to be fit for their ordinary purpose and acceptable to buyers.
- To establish an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, the buyer must inform the seller of their specific requirement.
- Opinions expressed in advertising materials do not create express warranties.
- Evidence must establish the standard of merchantability in the trade to support a claim of breach of an implied warranty of merchantability.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What key elements differentiate express warranties from implied warranties?
Express warranties result from promises or factual statements integral to the contract, while implied warranties assure goods’ fitness for ordinary purposes and acceptability to buyers.
- For example: A car manufacturer explicitly stating a vehicle’s zero-emission feature creates an express warranty, whereas the implied warranty ensures the car is generally suitable for driving.
How does the court determine the enforceability of an express warranty in advertising?
The court assesses if promises in advertising materials substantially influence a buyer’s decision, making them an integral part of the contractual agreement and forming an express warranty.
- For example: If a smartphone ad promises a specific camera quality, and a buyer relies on this promise when purchasing, it becomes an enforceable express warranty.
Under what circumstances can implied warranties of merchantability apply?
Implied warranties of merchantability apply when goods are expected to be fit for their ordinary purpose, meet industry standards, and are generally acceptable to buyers.
- For example: Buying a new refrigerator implies it will cool efficiently, aligning with the ordinary purpose, industry standards, and buyer expectations.
References
Was this case brief helpful?