Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 11, § 2-313 (Supp. 1984-85), in part, provides: (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. (b) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description. (c) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as "warrant" or "guarantee" or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty.
Plaintiff, Hale W. Miller, noticed a used outboard motor on display in a shop and inquired as to the owner and price. He spoke with the seller by telephone, who informed him that the motor was in good condition with only 30-35 running hours on it, but had been involved in an accident when the boat to which the motor was attached fell off a trailer. Plaintiff was also informed that the motor had a broken skeg, but other than that, it was in perfect running condition and should not cause plaintiff any trouble. There was no written agreement between the parties. About a month after the purchase, the plaintiff had difficulty with the motor and took it in for repairs. Later other problems were discovered. Plaintiff instituted an action against the seller, alleging breach of an express warranty, 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-313 (Supp. 1984-85), and mutual mistake in the contract of sale. The district court concluded that the seller’s representations were merely “puffing.” The district court further concluded that the contract was not based on mutual mistake. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the trial court erred in its conclusions.
Did the trial court err in holding that the seller’s representations were merely “puffing,” and in concluding that the contract was not based on mutual mistake?
Given the trial court's finding that during a telephone conversation with the plaintiff, the seller described certain damage to the motor, the court held here was no error in concluding that the seller's other statements as to the condition of the motor constituted nothing more than sales talk. Nor did the trial court commit any error in finding no mutual mistake because the plaintiff testified that he believed the motor would run and the problems did not arise until he used it for some time. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision.