Essay on Warranty of Merchantability

For purchasers who have given back merchandise that did not work, they have profited from the core warranty of merchantability. This contract guarantees that a product sold by a dealer will work efficiently when it is used for its envisioned purposes. This is called an implied warranty which means it exists without the necessity to be printed or spoken. A trader does not have to tell a customer that the merchandise is assured to work for its rational purpose because the warranty is created by the law. The Implied Warrant falls under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 2-314. The contract is established off the notion that the merchant should be aware whether a product will work appropriately or not and reassures traders to concentrate on value before releasing products on the market. The implied contract for merchantability warranties that a product will perform as projected. In this situation, the trader created a limited service contract regarding the repair or replacement of the faulty part which they cannot fix under the disguised contract of merchantability (UCC) 2-314. As stated previously, this necessitates that the car is to be fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is intended.

In the case study, we are assuming that the agreement entered between the dealer and the buyer Raymond Smith, is a legitimate contract. We take that Uniform Commercial Code Article 2 applies in this case since payment was made by the purchaser Raymond Smith to the seller resulting in a sale of a product of $500 and beyond. Under the UCC code section 2-201(1), all agreements for the sale of goods worth $500 or more is not enforced by method of action except if there is some satisfactory writing showing that an agreement has been completed between the buyer and seller and signed by the person against whom implementation is required or by his certified agent. Furthermore, the Uniform Commercial Code act of limitations is a four year period but the merchant and buyer can decide to decrease the time to one year but cannot lengthen past the four years. As in Raymond Smiths case, the disaster occurred only one month after buying the car. For that reason, it falls well within the law of limitations.

Apparently, when an individual buys a new car, the performance and state of the new automobile must meet business standards and work at high levels. Warrant disclaimers can only be refuted, or limited, only if the service contract disclaimer and the warranty can be sensibly made with each other to make possible sense and not degrade the contract. The guidelines for renouncing implied warranties state that; to abandon the pledge of merchantability in the signed agreement, the printed contract must contain a visible disclaimer that either clearly recognizes merchantability or comprises an expression affirming that the products are sold as is or with entire flaws (Cornell Law School, n.d.).If Raymond Smith sues the dealer for his damages from the flaw of the new vehicle he procured, the verdict would be in his favor. The judgment in favor of the buyer Raymond Smith would be held to the point that the warranty and the contract disclaimer was not rationally created with each other to make sense and not degrade the agreement.

References

Cornell Law School. (n.d.). 2-316. Exclusion or Modification of Warranties. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-316