M was a farmer who wanted to install a piece of equipment in his farm that weighed two-thousand-pound. The equipment requited to be lifted and kept in a hayloft that was thirty feet high. M goes to DH to purchase a rope so as to lift the equipment. M asks DH for a heavy-duty rope that can be used in the farm. On the recommendation DH, M purchases two hundred feet of a one-inch thick nylon rope but the rope breaks while lifting the equipment, leaving the equipment damaged. M sued DH for the breach of implied warranty of fitness of a particular product.
Under UCC Article 2 section 315, implied warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose arises when the seller is aware about the following two things, they are:
1. The particular purpose for which the good will be used by the buyer.
2. The buyer relies on the skill and judgment of the seller for selection of the suitable good (UCC 2-315, 2A-213).
In the given case M asked DH to provide a heavy-duty rope to be used on his farm but did not mention the particular purpose for which the rope was supposed to be used. DH was unaware that the particular purpose for which the rope was supposed to be used was to lift a two-thousand-pound equipment up to the height of 30ft. with the help of a tractor and a pulley. The rope was not generally used in the farm, it was used for a significantly different purpose that could not have been known by DH.
As it can be seen that DH did not know about the particular purpose for which the rope was supposed to be used , then it cannot be said that DH gave incorrect recommendation. The rope that was recommended by DH was on the basis of the statement that the rope was required for farm use. Had M specifically mentioned that he wanted the rope to lift a two-thousand-pound equipment, then DH would have suggested a rope taking this fact into consideration.
Similarly, it cannot be stated that M, the buyer, fully relied on DH's judgment because M himself determined the length that he thought would be sufficient to lift the equipment. Also, if M would have actually trusted the judgment of DH then he would have specifically mentioned the purpose of rope so that DH could recommend the rope and its length accordingly.
Thus, M would not successful in his suit.
Most likely the court will rule in favor of the manufacturer since the gun performed as C and W expected. Furthermore, both C and W were aware of the possible danger and rejected the opportunity to wear protective eyewear.
In addition, there was no proof to indicate the gun did actually malfunction. W also knew that it was dangerous to shoot someone in the eye with the gun and his testimony explaining that the gun did not malfunction especially favors the manufacturer.
As per UCC 2-314, 2A-212, every lease or sale of goods made by a merchant automatically creates an implied warranty of merchantability. Goods must be "rationally fit for the usual purposes for which such goods are used" to be merchantable.
Therefore, P owed an implied warranty of merchantability of spa being in good condition to be rationally fit for the usual purposes for which spa is used. And as per law, even if P did not know about the defect in spa, such warranty of merchantability is considered to be breached. Therefore, K can legally sue P for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.