Glyptal v. Engelhard Corp. case brief

Glyptal v. Engelhard Corp.; (SJC of MA, 1992); Supp 77; Notes 43

Paint for GE trains case

• Facts: Glyptal is in contract with GE for paint. Glyptal has a contract with Englehard (supplier) for pigment. Glyptal tests sample, orders and then learns pigment viscosity changes too quickly. Englehard recommends another pigment which Glyptal orders but doesn’t work. They had only paid for the first shipment of cadmium not the second because they had anticipated having a claim against Englehard because the first shipment didn’t work – why should they have to pay for the second shipment? Glyptal sues D for breach of warranty.
• Issue: Can Glyptal recover without any written warranties?
• Terms: D sends samples to P and P tested and ordered product.
• Breach: the paint was too thick due to a chemical imbalance and so P called D and D told P that there was cadmium 1864 that would work so P ordered the 1864 and tested for viscocity but not for light fastness or weather ability - after P sold paint to GE, it faded in one year and P had to pay to repaint the RR cars. P sues for breach of warranties; three claims
• Expressed Warranty Claim: Glyptal says that the expressed warranty came in the form of the sample Englehard provided. Glyptal tests the sample, it works – Glyptal orders more. Englehard is then responsible if the rest of the order does not work in the same way the sample worked.
• Breach of Warranty Claim: Englehard promised to deliver something of a certain quality and it wasn’t of that quality (see Hawkins v. McGee). Glyptal wants damages for repairing, cost of cadmium, consequential damages, redo job 3 times, preventing them from doing work for other customers.
• Consequential damages? Foreseeable? Yes. D knew exactly what would be done with the paint. UCC § 2-714: (1) says that buyer can recover for nonconformity after acceptance “resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller’s breach as determined in any manner which is reasonable.”
• Three claims further defined:

1. Express Warranty (§2-313) - code says warranty created when sample or model made a basis of the K. Warranty is that the order will be exactly the same but it wasn’t b/c of the chemical imbalance. P says there was also an express warranty through the telephone conversation with D’s technical assistant.
2. Implied warranty of merchantability (§2-314(c)) – goods must be fit for the ordinary use. Even though the product was not ordinarily for paint it p was told it could be used for this purpose.
3. Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (§2-315) – requires proof of three factual elements:

(1) seller must have reason to know of the particular purpose for which buyer requires the goods,

(2) seller must have reason to know that the buyer is relying on sellers skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, and

(3) buyer in fact must rely on the sellers skill or judgment.