In the context of a used car sale, representations by the seller, such as the car is in good mechanical condition, are presumed to be affirmations of fact that become part of the basis of the bargain. Because they are presumed to be part of the basis of the bargain, such representations constitute express warranties, regardless of the buyer's reliance on them, unless the seller shows by clear affirmative proof that the representations did not become part of the basis of the bargain.
Plaintiff bought a car from defendants, who say that the car is in good condition, with the exception of a small noise and a missing grommet. Soon after plaintiff purchases the car, plaintiff experiences numerous problems, and has to replace the clutch and failing brakes. The repairs cost over $2,000, and plaintiff sues the defendant for breach of express warranty. Trial Court rules for plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.
Did defendants' representation that the used car was in good condition constitute an express warranty that became part of the bargain?
In affirming the lower court's ruling, the appellate court held that in the context of a used car sale, representations by the seller were presumed to be affirmations of fact that became part of the bargain, unless the seller showed by clear, affirmative proof that they did not become part of the bargain. Because the defendants could not show this, the appellate court affirmed the judgment.