Legal Memorandum: Enforcement of Warranties in MN

Issue: In Minnesota, what is necessary to prove a claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose or for breach of express warranties?

Area of Law: Personal Injury & Negligence
Keywords: Breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; Breach of express warranties; The doctrine of implied warranty
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Cited Cases: 163 N.W.2d 767
Cited Statutes: Minn. Stat. § 36.2A-513
Date: 01/01/2006


The enforcement of warranties is particularly favored by the Minnesota courts.  See Asbestos Prods., Inc. v. Ryan Landscape Supply Co., 282 Minn. 178, 163 N.W.2d 767, 768 (1968).  As expressed by the Supreme Court with respect to implied warranties:

The doctrine of implied warranty is an equitable one favored by this court and should be given effect when it is possible to do so.  In applying the rule, we must not lose sight of the fact that it originated and is used to promote high standards of business and to discourage sharp dealings. It rests upon the principle that ‘honesty is the best policy’ and contemplates business transactions in which both parties may profit.


The applicable statute makes clear that notification of intention to cure must come before the time for the lessor’s performance has expired.  See Minn. Stat. § 36.2A-513. 


Subscribe to Litigation Pathfinder

To get the full-text of this Legal Memorandum ... and more!

(Month-to-month and annual subscriptions available)