Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuittrialcorporation

appealtrialwillcorporation

Related Cases

Bayliner Marine Corp. v. Crow, 257 Va. 121, 509 S.E.2d 499, 37 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 594

Facts

In 1989, John R. Crow purchased a 3486 Trophy Convertible fishing boat from Tidewater Yacht Agency, which was the exclusive dealer for Bayliner Marine Corporation. Crow was unable to determine the boat's speed during a test ride and relied on information from a sales representative, who provided 'prop matrixes' indicating a maximum speed of 30 miles per hour. However, the boat was equipped with a propeller that was not listed in the matrix, and upon delivery, Crow discovered the boat's maximum speed was only 13 miles per hour. Despite numerous repairs, the boat's speed did not improve significantly, leading Crow to file a lawsuit against Bayliner for breach of warranties.

In the summer of 1989, John R. Crow was invited by John Atherton, then a sales representative for Tidewater Yacht Agency, Inc. (Tidewater), to ride on a new model sport fishing boat known as a 3486 Trophy Convertible, manufactured by Bayliner Marine Corporation (Bayliner).

Issue

Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's ruling that the manufacturer of a sport fishing boat breached an express warranty and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

In this appeal, the dispositive issue is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's ruling that the manufacturer of a sport fishing boat breached an express warranty and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

Rule

Express warranties are created by any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller that relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain. Implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are established under the Uniform Commercial Code, requiring that goods be fit for their ordinary purposes and for any particular purpose made known to the seller.

Code § 8.2–313 provides, in relevant part: Express warranties by the seller are created as follows: (a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise.

Analysis

The court found that the statements in the 'prop matrixes' did not constitute an express warranty because they did not relate to the specific boat purchased by Crow. Additionally, the sales brochure's statement about performance was deemed a mere opinion and not a warranty. The court also determined that Crow failed to prove that the boat was not merchantable or fit for its ordinary purpose, as there was no evidence of the standard of merchantability in the trade or that a significant portion of the buying public would object to the boat's speed capabilities.

The trial court entered judgment in favor of Crow against Bayliner on the counts of breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Bayliner did not breach any express or implied warranties regarding the boat's performance.

For these reasons, we will reverse the trial court's judgment and enter final judgment in favor of Bayliner.

Who won?

Bayliner Marine Corporation prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the evidence did not support the trial court's findings of breach of warranty.

We will uphold the trial court's judgment unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Norfolk Southern Ry., Co. v. Basell USA, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 3832518

Sevast v. Kakouras, 591 Pa. 44, 915 A.2d 1147

Sofa Gallery, Inc. v. Stratford Co., 872 F.2d 259

De La Concha of Hartford, Inc. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 269 Conn. 424, 849 A.2d 382

Cepeda v. Swift & Co., 415 F.2d 1205