Legal Memorandum: Notice and Warranty for Manufacturer Defects

Issue: Notice and warranty requirements for manufacturer defects

Area of Law: Personal Injury & Negligence
Keywords: Manufacturer defects; Notice and warranty requirements
Jurisdiction: Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina
Cited Cases: 893 F.2d 195; 450 N.W.2d 913; 652 A.2d 1225; 91 F.3d 242; 411 F. Supp. 2d 614
Cited Statutes: None
Date: 12/01/2006

The following cases are relevant to this issue:

Bussian v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 411 F. Supp. 2d 614, 622-23 (M.D.N.C. 2006) (question whether durational limitation in express warranty was unconscionable should not be determined without development of evidence regarding time, place, and commercial setting, such that motion to dismiss must be denied).  See also Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp., 450 N.W.2d 913, 917 (Minn. 1990) (when there is inconsistency between express warranty and disclaimer, the express warranty’s language prevails). 

Sullivan v. Young Bros. & Co., 91 F.3d 242, 249-50 (1st Cir. 1996).  Accord Recold, S.A. de C.V. v. Monfort of Colo., Inc., 893 F.2d 195, 198 (8th Cir. 1990), 91 F.3d at 250 (the plaintiff’s notifying immediate seller of boat that there was a crack in wet exhaust tubing satisfied requirement of notice to tubing manufacturer under Maine’s UCC).  See id. at 250-51.  See also Duall Bldg. Restoration, Inc. v. 1143 E. Jersey Ave. Assocs., 652 A.2d 1225, 1230 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995) (“[a] buyer that informs its immediate seller within a reasonable time that there is a problem with an identified product ‘has taken such steps as may be reasonably required to inform’ a manufacturer that is not its immediate seller about the breach” (citation omitted).)


Subscribe to Litigation Pathfinder

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

(Month-to-month and annual subscriptions available)