Bobholz v. Banaszak - 2003 WI App 1, 259 Wis. 2d 483, 655 N.W.2d 547

Rule:

Any affirmation of fact relating to the goods which induces a buyer to purchase and which is relied upon by the buyer constitutes an express warranty.

Facts:

The boat was advertised on two different internet web sites, one describing it as being "in perfect condition," the other as being "in excellent condition." After the purchase it was discovered that the engine's intake manifold had irreparable damage. The buyers sued for the price of the new engine. The court awarded the buyers the replacement cost of the engine, and the statutory costs. On appeal, the seller argued inter alia that the circuit court erroneously admitted the on-line advertisement describing the boat as "in perfect condition," as the buyer had not purchased the boat through that particular internet auction site. The seller also argued that he was a "casual seller," and thus that his on-line advertisement describing the ski-boat as "in perfect condition" did not constitute an express warranty.

Issue:

1. Did the circuit court erroneously admit the on-line advertisement describing the boat as "in perfect condition”?
2. Did the seller’s representations as to the quality of the boat created a warranty? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. The court disagreed with the seller’s contentions, and held that the advertisement had significant probative value on a disputed fact issue, that is, whether the seller had made representations regarding the quality of the boat. The court further held that the seller's statements made on-line and later in person, that the ski-boat was "in perfect condition," were not couched as his "opinion" or "belief" and that the buyers had relied on those statements in buying the boat.