Source: https://www.accidentlawyerhawaii.com/defective-products-liability/warranty-manufacturers.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:01:28+00:00

Document:
The Hawaii Supreme Court has made it clear that warranty claims may be made against manufacturers along with claims for strict product liability and negligence. Indeed, this has been specifically recognized by the Hawaii Supreme Court in the case of Ontai v. Straub Clinic and Hospital, Inc., 66 Haw. 237, 249, 659 P.2d 734, 740-41 (1983).
"Whether or not this warranty arises in any individual case is basically a question of fact to be determined by the circumstances of the contracting. Under this section the buyer need not bring home to the seller actual knowledge of the particular purpose for which the goods are intended or of his reliance on the seller's skill and judgment, if the circumstances are such that the seller has reason to realize the purpose intended or that the reliance exists. The buyer, of course, must actually be relying on the seller." [emphasis in the original] 66 Haw. at 249-251, 659 P.2d 740-741.
The law of warranties applicable to sales is set forth in Chapter 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. HRS Chapter 490:2 "The Uniform Commercial Code - Sales".
HRS § 490:2-106(1): "A 'sale' consists in the passing of title from seller to buyer for a price."
HRS § 490:2-103(a): "'Buyer' means a person who buys or contracts to buy goods."
HRS § 490:2-103(d): "'Seller' means a person who sells or contracts to sell goods."
HRS § 490:2-104(1): "'Merchant' means a person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to whom such knowledge or skill may be attributed by his employment of an agent or broker or other intermediary who by his occupation holds himself out as having such knowledge or skill."
Sale Creates Implied Warranties of Merchantability and Fitness and Express Warranties.
"Implied warranty: merchantability; usage of trade.
(f) Conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any..."
Hence, a manufacturer gives all of these implied warranties of merchantability at the time of the sale.
"Implied warranty: fitness for particular purpose. Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose."
"(2) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as 'warrant' or 'guarantee' or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty."
from any breach of warranty."
Hence, in summary, a purchaser is entitled to rely upon the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, as well as the express warranties which were created, to recover their incidental and consequential damages for breach of such warranties.
A buyer who wishes to assert a breach of warranty claim may be required to give notice of the breach to the seller and/or the manufacturer. The comments to HRS §490:2-607 provide "the time of notification is determined by applying commercial standards to a merchant buyer [emphasis added]. 'A reasonable time' for notification from a retail consumer [emphasis added] is to be judged by different standards so that in his case it will be extended, for the rule of requiring notification is designed to defeat commercial bad faith, not to deprive a good faith consumer of his remedy. [emphasis added]" The comments to the official text elaborate further on this point in Section 5: "Under this article various beneficiaries are given rights for injuries sustained by them because of the seller's breach of warranty. Such a beneficiary does not fall within the reason of the present section in regard to the discovery of defects and the giving of notice within a reasonable time after acceptance, since he has nothing to do with acceptance. However, the reason of this section does not extend to requiring the beneficiary to notify the seller that an injury has occurred. What is said above, with regard to the extended time for reasonable notification from the lay consumer after the injury is also applicable here; but even a beneficiary can be properly held to the use of good faith in notifying, once he has had time to become aware of the legal situation."
The District Court's decision in Chapman v. Brown was affirmed on appeal in Brown v. Chapman, 304 F.2d 149 (9th Cir. Haw. 1962). The Appellate Court also found "it cannot be said that, as a matter of law, proper notice was not given within a reasonable time, but... it was a question for the jury to decide under all of the circumstances." 304 F.2d at 152.

References: v. 
 § 490
 § 490
 § 490
 § 490
 §490
 v. 
 v.