243 Va. 73, 413 S.E.2d 336 (1992)
Appellant buyer purchased a diamond bracelet for his wife from appellee seller. The seller represented to the buyer that the diamonds were of "v.v.s." grade, which is a very high quality grade. However, the buyer later discovered that the diamonds were of much lower value. The buyer then sued the seller for specific performance to compel him to replace the bracelet with one mounted with v.v.s. diamonds or pay appropriate damages. The trial court found that the buyer had not proven that the appraisal was a term or condition of the sale nor a warranty, and denied relief for breach of warranty.
- On review, the court found that the seller's description of the diamonds was more than his opinion; rather, he intended it to be a statement of a fact.
- Therefore, the description was an express warranty under Uniform CommercialCode § 8.2-313(2).
- Furthermore, the seller's affirmation of the diamonds' quality was a part of the basis of the bargain.
- Therefore, the court found that the buyer was entitled to recover for his loss of bargain.
- The trial court's decision was reversed and remanded for further proceedings to ascertain the buyer's damages.
The trial court's decision was reversed. Appellee seller was liable for statements regarding the value of a diamond bracelet sold to appellant buyer when the buyer discovered that the bracelet was of far lesser value than the seller had represented.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.