Warranty Violations In Sales

Summary

In sales transactions, warranties play a critical role in protecting consumer rights. A warranty of no liens ensures that goods sold are free from third-party claims. Express warranties are specific promises about a products quality, while implied warranties, like merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, are automatically included unless disclaimed. Disclaimers, such as as is, can negate implied warranties if clearly stated. In California, the Lemon Law protects consumers from defective vehicles, and the statute of limitations for breach of contract is four years for written agreements. Understanding these aspects can help consumers and sellers navigate potential legal issues effectively.

Full Conversation

Megasoft employs hundreds of software designers, all of whom have contracts with Megasoft that give it the rights to any software they create. Every time Megasoft sells a new piece of software designed by its employees, it creates a warranty: a. of basis. b. against subrogation. c. disclaiming title. d. against infringement
Megasoft's situation involves intellectual property and employee contracts. Since they create a warranty when selling software, the most relevant warranty here would be:
- d. against infringement
This warranty ensures that the software sold does not infringe on any third-party intellectual property rights.
Would you need more details on this particular warranty or any other legal information?
Holly comes into Matthew’s bicycle shop to learn about the Easy Ride bicycle she saw in his newspaper ad. Matthew shows her the floor sample of the bicycle and says that it is designed to shift and brake more easily than her current model does. She decides to purchase one. Matthew gets a box from the back of the shop and sells it to her, stating that it contains the bicycle Holly wants. Matthew does NOT create an express warranty with his statement that the bicycle inside the box: a. was purchased from a disreputable manufacturer. b. conforms to his description of the Easy Ride. c. conforms to the floor sample he showed to Holly. d. conforms to his promise about the bicycle’s shifting and braking ability.
In this scenario, Matthew does not create an express warranty when he states that the bicycle inside the box:
a. was purchased from a disreputable manufacturer.
This is because the statement does not pertain to a fact or promise about the quality or functionality of the bicycle itself, which an express warranty would typically cover.
Do you need further clarification or information on warranties?
Jackson goes to the Jewelry Mart to buy an engagement ring for his significant other. The salesperson shows Jackson a beautiful diamond ring and states, “You won’t find a diamond like this at this price anywhere.” Jackson buys the ring and then discovers that a diamond of the same quality was for sale in a similar ring on the next block for $* less than he paid. Jackson likely: a. will not win a suit for breach of warranty because the salesperson was an expert. b. will win a suit for breach of warranty because the salesperson’s statement was an express warranty. c. will win a suit for breach of warranty because the salesperson’s statement was an implied warranty. d. will not win a suit for breach of warranty because the salesperson’s statement was a statement of opinion.
Jackson likely:
- d. will not win a suit for breach of warranty because the salesperson’s statement was a statement of opinion.
The statement "You won’t find a diamond like this at this price anywhere" is considered a sales puffery, which is an opinion rather than a factual assertion. Therefore, it does not form an express warranty.
Is there anything else you would like to know about warranties or any other legal information?
You go to buy a chainsaw and the salesperson says, "This chainsaw could probably cut down a two thousand-year-old redwood in five minutes." The salesperson has created: a. an express warranty. b. nothing, because he is just puffing. c. an implied warranty.
The salesperson's statement about the chainsaw likely constitutes sales puffery, which is generally considered an opinion rather than a factual assertion. Therefore, the correct answer is:
- b. nothing, because he is just puffing.
Do you need more information on warranties or any other legal topic?
oey sells a clock from his store through an online auction website. He has never met the buyer, Rod, and had no communication with him before the sale agreement. When he sends the clock, he does not disclaim any warranties. The sale most likely automatically carries with it the implied warranty of: a. opinion. b. fitness for a particular purpose. c. inspection. d. merchantability.
Joey's sale of the clock automatically carries the implied warranty of:
- d. merchantability: This means the clock should be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.
Would you like more details about implied warranties or any other legal topic?
Jefferson sells hammers in his hardware store. Maggie buys a hammer from Jefferson. She takes it home and smashes her thumb with it. The hammer likely is: a. an unreasonably dangerous product. b. a good product with no warranties. c. a defective product. d. a merchantable product.
Hey! Based on the situation, the hammer is likely:
- d. a merchantable product: Since the hammer worked as intended and there doesn't seem to be any defect causing the injury, it's still considered merchantable.
Do you need any more information or have another question?
Carla is on vacation at a seaside resort, goes to a local Mexican restaurant and orders fresh grilled fish tacos. While eating one of the tacos, Carla cuts the inside of her mouth on a fishbone. It is likely that: a. the fish is not merchantable because it contained a bone. b. the fish was merchantable because a reasonable consumer would expect that a bone may be present. c. the fish is not merchantable because it is unreasonable to believe that a fishbone would appear in a fish taco. d. there was no breach of any warranty because food is not covered by warranties.
In Carla's case, the most likely scenario is:
- b. the fish was merchantable because a reasonable consumer would expect that a bone may be present.
Since it is common for fish to contain bones, a reasonable consumer might expect the possibility of encountering a bone in a fish taco.
Do you need more details on this topic or any other legal information?
Janice is shopping for something to put on the floor of her dairy barn that won’t cause the cows to slip but will clean it up a bit. She goes to Gabe’s Farm Store and Gabe tells Janice that he has just the thing, a special rubber flooring that works well in dairy barns and has an anti-slip property to it. Based on Gabe’s comments, Janice buys the floor covering and installs it. Right away, two dozen cows slip, fall, and are injured on the slippery rubber. Janice sues Gabe, contending that Gabe breached: a. a void warranty. b. a warranty of title. c. an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. d. an implied warranty of merchantability
Janice would likely contend that Gabe breached:
- c. an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose
This is because Gabe recommended the rubber flooring specifically for use in a dairy barn to prevent slipping, which it failed to do.
Do you have any other questions or need further information?
Jacque sells thirty newborn lambs to Millie for her farm. It is a well-known custom in the industry to have all newborn lambs vaccinated against various diseases. If Jacque did not have the lambs vaccinated before delivery to Millie, and the lambs became sick and died, it is likely: a. unfortunate for Millie, but she should have negotiated that in the contract. b. that Jacque violated an express warranty. c. that Millie violated an implied warranty based on trade custom. d. that Jacque violated an implied warranty based on trade custom.
If Jacque did not have the lambs vaccinated before delivery to Millie, it is likely:
- d. that Jacque violated an implied warranty based on trade custom.
This is because it is a well-known custom in the industry to vaccinate newborn lambs, and failing to do so might be seen as not meeting the trade standards.
Do you need more information on implied warranties or any other legal topic?
Minh purchases a new car from Teddy’s Car Box. The car repeatedly has mechanical problems within the first three months. Teddy’s attempts to repair the problem but cannot. It is likely that: a. Minh has bad luck and should be more careful in buying cars. b. Minh’s car is a lemon and she is entitled to all of her money back, plus damages for the time and energy spent looking for a new car. c. Minh has misused her car. d. Minh’s car is a lemon and she is entitled to a new one.
Minh's situation likely falls under California's Lemon Law, which protects consumers who purchase new vehicles with substantial defects. Here's what you need to know:
- The car must have a substantial defect covered by warranty.
- The defect must occur within 18 months or *,* miles.
- The manufacturer must have made a reasonable number of unsuccessful repair attempts.
Based on this, the most likely answer is:
- d. Minh’s car is a lemon and she is entitled to a new one.
Would you like more details on how to proceed with a Lemon Law claim?
Tim buys a car from a used car dealer. The purchase order he signs states that the car is sold “as is.” That phrase disclaims: a. an implied warranty of fitness for a nonspecified purpose. b. a limited warranty of remediation. c. a full warranty. d. all implied warranties.
The phrase "as is" in a purchase order typically disclaims:
- d. all implied warranties.
In California, when a vehicle is sold "as is," it means the buyer accepts the car in its current condition, and the seller does not provide any warranties on the vehicle.
Would you like more details on implied warranties or any other legal information related to car purchases?
Refrigerators R Us sells a brand new refrigerator to Connie with a warranty that states: “This refrigerator is warranted to be free from defects for thirty-six months.” This statement creates: a. an implied warranty that the refrigerator will be fit for normal use only. b. an express warranty against all defects only. c. an express warranty against all defects, and an implied warranty that the refrigerator will be fit for normal use. d. neither an express warranty or implied warranty.
The warranty statement given by Refrigerators R Us creates:
- c. an express warranty against all defects, and an implied warranty that the refrigerator will be fit for normal use.
Do you need more details about express and implied warranties or any other legal information?
Richie goes to Buster’s Trailers to purchase a trailer. He tells Buster that he plans to use the trailer to haul fish from the ocean to his wholesalers. The sales contract has a disclaimer in large, boldface type, “TRAILERS SOLD WITH NO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.” Richie signs the contract. The fish slosh around in the trailer and are killed and worthless by the time they get to market. When Richie sues Buster for his losses, the disclaimer will: a. not be allowed because it is fraudulent; merchants may not disclaim liability. b. be allowed, but because Richie used the trailer for a particular purpose Richie will likely prevail. c. be allowed, and Richie will most likely not prevail. d. not be allowed, and Richie will most likely prevail because Buster, a merchant, had a duty to advise against using a trailer.
The correct answer is:
- c. be allowed, and Richie will most likely not prevail.
In California, disclaimers of warranties, including those of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, are generally enforceable if they are conspicuously stated in the contract, as they were in this case. Would you like more details on warranty disclaimers or any other related legal information?
If Sean files suit against Wholesalers, Inc., for a breach of contract, the suit must be brought within: a. two years. b. one year. c. four years. d. three years.
In California, the statute of limitations for filing a breach of contract lawsuit is generally:
- Four years for written contracts.
- Two years for oral contracts.
So, the correct answer for a written contract would be:
- c. four years.
Do you need more information on how to proceed with a breach of contract case?