O'Connor v. Judith B. & Roger C. Young, Inc.

No. C-93-4547 DLJ, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21111 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 1995)

 

RULE:

Cal. Com. Code §§ 2314 and 2316(3)(b) preclude an implied warranty when the buyer inspects the goods before the purchase.

FACTS:

Plaintiff purchaser filed suit against defendant sellers, alleging breach of oral contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud that arose from a transaction for the sale and purchase of a show horse. Both sides filed motions for summary adjudication. The court granted the sellers' motion for summary adjudication as it related to the claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and breach of the implied warranty of fitness. The court granted the purchaser's motion as it applied to the defenses of statute of limitations, statute of frauds, failure to state a claim, lack of ordinary care, failure to maintain, intervening cause, unclean hands, reliance, opinion, and defenses.

ISSUE:

Is plaintiff precluded from his claims for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and fitness?

ANSWER:

Yes.

CONCLUSION:

The court ruled that a jury could find that the statements were ultimately directed at the purchaser in an effort to induce the sale. The court, however, held that Cal. Com. Code §§ 23142316(3)(b) barred both the claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and the claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness because the purchaser inspected the horse before the purchase. As to the purchaser's motion, the court held that the three year limitations period of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(d)applied to the fraud claim and not the one-year limitations statute of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.