Source: https://www.newsomelaw.com/warranty-theories-2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:53:24+00:00

Document:
Also See: Warranty Theories Part 1.
This is the second in a multi-part series on the basics of products liability practice. This month’s installment will discuss products liability causes of action based on express and implied warranties. Causes of action for breach of warranty are contract, rather than tort, causes of action. These actions, which arose out of the common law of contracts, are now governed by the Florida Uniform Commercial Code contained in Chapters 670 through 680, Florida Statutes. Click here for a sample complaint alleging breach of express and implied warranties.
In the years leading up to the Florida Supreme Court’s adoption of the doctrine of strict liability in West v. Caterpillar, 531 So.2d 531 (Fla. 1976), Florida case law had created many exceptions to the privity requirement, making it easier for injured parties to recover. However, these exceptions were eliminated after West v. Caterpillar. See, Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corporation, 520 So.2d 37 (Fla. 1988) in which the Florida Supreme Court stated: “ . . . the doctrine of strict liability in tort supplants all no-privity, breach of implied warranty cases, because it was, in effect, created out of these cases. This groundbreaking holding [in West v. Caterpillar] did not result in the demise of the contract action of breach of implied warranty, as that action remains, said the West court, where privity of contract is shown.” Id. at 39.
The requirement that the seller and injured party be in privity of contract eliminates breach of warranty as a cause of action in “bystander cases” in which the injured party has no relationship to the product. However, in F.S. § 672.318, entitled “Third-party beneficiaries of warranties express or implied,” the Florida legislature extended the reach of the privity relationship. That section provides that “[a] seller’s warranty whether express or implied extends to any natural person who is in the family or household of his or her buyer, who is a guest in his or her home or who is an employee, servant, or agent of his or her buyer if it is reasonable to expect that such person may use, consume or be affected by the goods and who is injured in person by breach of the warranty.” F.S. § 672.318.
Florida Statutes § 672.313 states that an express warranty is created by an affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer that relates to the goods, by any description of the goods that is made part of the basis of the bargain, or by any sample or model that is made part of the basis of the bargain. The warranty created by any of the above is that the product will conform to the promise, description, sample, or model. According to Florida Statutes, Section 762.313, it is not necessary that the seller use formal words such as “warranty” or “guarantee” or that the seller have a specific intention to make a warranty, in order for an express warranty to be created. However, a statement that is merely about the value of the goods or is merely the seller’s opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty.
The “Notice” element (Number 6 above) is a statutory requirement contained in F.S. § 672.607(3)(a). That statute requires that a buyer must “within a reasonable time after he or she discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of the breach or be barred from any remedy. . . .” The notice required by F.S. § 672.607(3)(a) is a condition precedent to maintaining a cause of action for breach of warranty and the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the condition was met. General Matters, Inc. v. Paramount Canning Company, 382 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980). See also, Dunham-Bush, Inc. v. Thermo-Air Service, Inc., 351 So.2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) and F.S. §672.607(3)(a).
There are two types of implied warranties: the implied warranty of merchantability and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. These two types of implied warranties are described in F.S. § 672.314 and 672.315, respectively.
(f) Conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label, if any.
Florida Statutes § 672.315 deals with implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. An implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose arises where, at the time of contracting, the seller had reason to know of a particular purpose for which the goods are required, and the buyer relied on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods for that purpose. This type of implied warranty arises in the situation where the seller has certain expertise that the buyer does not and recommends a particular product to meet a need of the buyer. The buyer must rely on the seller’s expertise, skill, or judgment to select the proper product for the buyer’s purpose.
The issues for your determination on the claim of (claimant) against (defendant) are whether the (describe product)[sold][supplied] by (defendant) was defective when it left the possession of (defendant) and, if so, whether such defect was a legal cause of [loss][injury] [or][damage] sustained by (claimant or person for whose injury claim is made). A product is defective.
if it does not conform to representations of fact made by (defendant), orally or in writing, in connection with the [sale][transaction], on which (name) relied in the [purchase and]use of the product. [Such a representation must be one of fact, rather than opinion].
if it is not reasonably fit for the uses intended or reasonably foreseeable by (defendant).
if it is not reasonably fit for the specific purpose for which (defendant) knowingly sold the product and for which the purchaser bought the product in reliance on the judgment of (defendant).
The following Section, F.S. §672.715, states that consequential damages include “[i]njury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty.” F.S. §672.715 (2)(b). Therefore, in a breach of warranty case involving personal injuries, the buyer of a product is entitled to recover the same damages for the personal injuries as he would be entitled to recover in a strict liability action.
 Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corporation, 520 So.2d 37 (Fla. 1988).
 As to all elements, see Dunham-Bush, Inc. v. Thermo-Air Service, Inc., 351 So.2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
 Elements 1 through 4 are named in Amoroso v. Samuel Friedland Family Enterprises, 604 So.2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), aff’d, 630 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 1994).
 The statutory notice requirement is stated in Dunham-Bush, Inc. v. Thermo-Air Service, Inc., 351 So.2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) and F.S. §672.607(3)(a).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 672
 § 672
 § 672
 § 672
 § 672
 v. 
 v. 
 §672
 § 672
 § 672
 §672
 §672
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §672