Wat Henry Pontiac Co. v. Bradley - 1949 OK 189, 202 Okla. 82, 210 P.2d 348

Rule:

To constitute an express warranty no particular form of words is necessary, and any affirmation of the quality or condition of the vehicle, not uttered as a matter of opinion or belief, made by a seller at the time of sale for the purpose of assuring the buyer of the truth of the fact and inducing the buyer to make the purchase, if so received and relied on by the buyer, is an express warranty. Warranty is a matter of intention. A decisive test is whether the vendor assumes to assert a fact of which the buyer is ignorant, or merely states an opinion, or his judgment, upon a matter of which the vendor has no special knowledge, and on which the buyer may also be expected to have an opinion and to exercise his judgment. In the former case there is a warranty; in the latter there is not.

Facts:

Plaintiff buyer went to Wat Henry Pontiac Company to purchase a car. The defendant car salesman warranted that the vehicle was in first-class condition and usable and serviceable in every aspect. However, the vehicle required repairs shortly after she purchased it. Consequently, plaintiff brought an action for breach of an express oral warranty. The district court awarded damages in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant appealed. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, was there an express oral warranty properly relied upon by the plaintiff buyer?  

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court noted that in order to constitute an express warranty no particular form of words was necessary, and any affirmation of the quality or condition of the vehicle, not uttered as a matter of opinion or belief, made by a seller at the time of sale for the purpose of assuring the buyer of the truth of the fact and inducing the buyer to make the purchase, if so received and relied on by the buyer, was an express warranty. In this case, the court held that the jury was justified in finding that there was an express oral warranty when the salesman was a mechanic prior to becoming a salesman, the buyer was not knowledgeable about cars, and the defects were hidden. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the buyer.