Source: https://govt.westlaw.com/pac/Document/N0F1C9360342B11DA8A989F4EECDB8638?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
Timestamp: 2018-10-23 14:05:20
Document Index: 327859520

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2315', '§ 2315', '§ 15', '§ 124', '§ 124', '§ 15', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2315', '§ 2315']

§ 2315. Implied warranty: fitness for particular purpose
13 Pa.C.S.A. § 2315
Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know:
(2) that the buyer is relying on the skill or judgment of the seller to select or furnish suitable goods;
there is unless excluded or modified under section 2316 (relating to exclusion or modification of warranties) an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.
5. The elimination of the “patent or other trade name” exception constitutes the major extension of the warranty of fitness which has been made by the cases and continued in this Article. Under the present section the existence of a patent or other trade name and the designation of the article by that name, or indeed in any other definite manner, is only one of the facts to be considered on the question of whether the buyer actually relied on the seller, but it is not of itself decisive of the issue. If the buyer himself is insisting on a particular brand he is not relying on the seller's skill and judgment and so no warranty results. But the mere fact that the article purchased has a particular patent or trade name is not sufficient to indicate nonreliance if the article has been recommended by the seller as adequate for the buyer's purposes.
This section roughly approximates § 15(2) of the Uniform Sales Act, 69 P.S. § 124 (repealed). The Code is somewhat broader than the prior statute in making clear that a warranty may arise if the buyer relies on the seller either “to select” or “to furnish” suitable goods. Under the Code a warranty is also imposed where the seller has “reason to know” a buyer's purpose. Contrast the weaker language of the prior statute (warranty arises where the buyer “makes known” his purpose to the seller).
The warranty of fitness for purpose under the Uniform Sales Act, 69 P.S. § 124 (repealed), has had broad application in the decisions. See: Jones & Laughlin Steel Co. v. Wood, 249 Pa. 423, 94 Atl. 1067 (1915); Wright v. General Carbonic Company, 271 Pa. 332, 114 Atl. 517 (1921); Peerless Electric Co. v. Call, 82 Pa.Super.Ct. 550 (1924); The St. S. Angelo Toso, 271 Fed. 245 (C.C.A.3d, 1921); Griffin v. Metal Product Co., 264 Pa. 254, 107 Atl. 713 (1919); Maine Electric Co. v. General Engineering Works, 95 Pa.Super.Ct. 397 (1929); Bonenberger v. Pittsburgh Mercantile Co., 345 Pa. 559, 28 Atl.(2d) 913 (1943) (retailer liable for defect in commodity sold in sealed container); Madden v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., 106 Pa.Super.Ct. 474, 162 Atl. 687 (1932). Cf. Demos Const. Co. v. Service Supply Corp., 153 Pa.Super.Ct. 623, 34 Atl.(2d) 828 (1944) (no reliance on seller found); Hill & McMillan v. Taylor, 304 Pa. 18, 155 Atl. 103 (1931) (no warranty where buyer orders according to specifications); Hartford Battery Sales Corp. v. Price, 119 Pa.Super.Ct. 165, 181 Atl. 95 (1935).
Sales Under Patent or Trade Name. The most significant modification is the omission of any provision comparable to § 15(4) of the repealed Uniform Sales Act, which withdrew the warranty of fitness for purpose from sales “of a specified article under its patent or other trade name.” This provision has caused difficulty in application, but in general, has been taken to spell out one instance in which the buyer makes his own selection and does not rely on the seller. Montgomery Foundry and Fittings Co. v. Hall etc. Co., 282 Pa. 212, 127 Atl. 633 (1925) (warranty barred by patent name); Griffin v. Metal Product Co., 264 Pa. 254, 107 Atl. 713 (1919) (generic name not “trade name”); Tinius Olsen Testing Mach. Co. v. Wolf Co., 297 Pa. 153, 146 Atl. 541 (1929); Wolstenholme v. Jos. Randall & Bro., 295 Pa. 131, 144 Atl. 909 (1929) (“artificial silk carded” not a trade name); U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Birdsboro Steel Foundry & Machine Co., 45 Pa. D. & C. 259 (1943); Hobart Mfg. Co. v. Rodziewicz, 125 Pa.Super.Ct. 240, 189 Atl. 580 (1937) (not sale under trade name designating article when buyer relies on seller). Occasionally the “trade name” qualification has been given greater effect. Madison-Kipp Corp. v. Price Battery Corp., 311 Pa. 22, 166 Atl. 377 (1933) (warranty excluded); Sebastianelli v. Frank, 108 Pa.Super.Ct. 550, 165 Atl. 664 (1933) (same). In view of the narrow scope generally given by cases to the “trade name” qualification, its omission from the statute clarifies rather than changes the law.
This section is similar to § 2-315 of the Uniform Commercial Code. See Uniform Laws Annotated, Master Edition, or Uniform Laws Annotated on Westlaw.
1953, April 6, P.L. 3, § 2-315 (12A P.S. § 2-315).
13 Pa.C.S.A. § 2315, PA ST 13 Pa.C.S.A. § 2315