Bayliner Marine Corp. v. Crow case brief summary
257 Va. 121
SYNOPSIS: Appellant sport fishing boat manufacturer sought review of the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth (Virginia) after it held that appellant breached an express warranty and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose to appellee buyer. Appellant alleged that there was insufficient evidence to support the lower court's ruling.
FACTS:
-Before the court was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the lower court's ruling that appellant sport fishing boat manufacturer breached an express warranty and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose to appellee buyer.
-The judgment of the lower court for appellee was reversed.
-Appellee argued that the particular purpose for which the boat was intended was use as an offshore fishing boat capable of traveling at a maximum speed of 30 miles per hour.
HOLDING:
The court held that appellee failed to show that he made known to appellant the particular purpose for which the goods were required.
ANALYSIS:
-Appellee was unable to establish an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
-The evidence showed that appellant did not know that a boat incapable of travelling 30 miles per hour was unacceptable to appellee.
-The court concluded that the evidence failed to support the lower court's ruling that appellant breached an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
RULES:
Express warranties by the seller are created as follows: any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise and any description of the goods which is made a part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description
CONCLUSION: The lower court judgment, which held that appellant breached express and implied warranties, was reversed. The court held that appellee buyer failed to establish a breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose because the evidence failed to show that appellee made known to appellant sport fishing boat manufacturer the particular purpose for which the goods were required.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
257 Va. 121
SYNOPSIS: Appellant sport fishing boat manufacturer sought review of the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth (Virginia) after it held that appellant breached an express warranty and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose to appellee buyer. Appellant alleged that there was insufficient evidence to support the lower court's ruling.
FACTS:
-Before the court was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the lower court's ruling that appellant sport fishing boat manufacturer breached an express warranty and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose to appellee buyer.
-The judgment of the lower court for appellee was reversed.
-Appellee argued that the particular purpose for which the boat was intended was use as an offshore fishing boat capable of traveling at a maximum speed of 30 miles per hour.
HOLDING:
The court held that appellee failed to show that he made known to appellant the particular purpose for which the goods were required.
ANALYSIS:
-Appellee was unable to establish an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
-The evidence showed that appellant did not know that a boat incapable of travelling 30 miles per hour was unacceptable to appellee.
-The court concluded that the evidence failed to support the lower court's ruling that appellant breached an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
RULES:
Express warranties by the seller are created as follows: any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise and any description of the goods which is made a part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description
CONCLUSION: The lower court judgment, which held that appellant breached express and implied warranties, was reversed. The court held that appellee buyer failed to establish a breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose because the evidence failed to show that appellee made known to appellant sport fishing boat manufacturer the particular purpose for which the goods were required.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
Bayliner Marine Corp. v. Crow: Plaintiff claimed that the boat he was sold was significantly slower than what was allegedly represented to him.
ReplyDeletea. Express warranties are created when the seller makes an affirmation of fact or a promise to the buyer, which becomes part of the basis of the bargain, or when the seller makes a description of certain goods that becomes part of the basis of the bargain. All goods that are sold contain an implied warranty that such goods are merchantable.
b. The Court ruled that the statements in the prop matrixes were not express warranties about the performance capacity of the boat because the documents explicitly referred to a boat that carried less weight and had different propeller sizes than the one Plaintiff purchased. Further, the brochure which described the boat being one that “delivers the kind of performance you need to get to the prime offshore fishing grounds” was a simply a statement of opinion or commendation made by the seller, and that such statements are not, standing alone, express warranties.