Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/products-liability-implied-warranty-of-merchantability-213
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 06:47:20
Document Index: 136865264

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1792', '§ 1791', '§\u20022725', '§ 437', '§ 430', '§ 1791', '§ 1794', '§ 1791', '§ 1794', '§ 1794', '§ 1791', '§ 1794', '§ 1795', '§1793', '§1793', '§1793', '§1791', '§1793', '§1793', '§1793', '§1791', '§1791']

Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability
Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, “every sale of consumer goods that are sold at retail in this state shall be accompanied by the manufacturer’s and the retail seller’s implied warranty that the goods are merchantable. The retail seller shall have a right of indemnity against the manufacturer in the amount of any liability under this section.” (Civil Code § 1792.)
Section 1791.1 provides, in relevant part, that:
“‘Implied warranty of merchantability’ or ‘implied warranty that goods are merchantable’ means that the consumer goods meet each of the following:
The duration of the implied warranty or merchantability and where present the implied warranty of fitness shall be coextensive in duration with an express warranty which accompanies the consumer goods, provided the duration of the express warranty if reasonable; but in no event shall such implied warranty have a duration of less than 60 days nor more than one year following the sale of new consumer goods to a retail buyer.”
“Consumer goods” means “any new product or part thereof that is used, bought, or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, except for clothing and consumables. ‘Consumer goods’ shall include new and used assistive devices sold at retail.” (Civil Code § 1791(a).)
Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Under Case Law
“The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale.” (See Moore v. Hubbard & Johnson [*1305] Lumber Co. (1957) 149 Cal. App. 2d 236, 241; Brittalia Ventures v. Stuke Nursery Co., Inc. (2007) 153 Cal. App. 4th 17, 24; Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. NAK Sealing Technologies Corp. (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 937, 950–952.) Indeed, “[u]ndisclosed latent defects... are the very evil that the implied warranty of merchantability was designed to remedy.” (Willis Mining, Inc. v. Noggle (1998) 235 Ga. App. 747, 749.) In the case of a latent defect, a product is rendered unmerchantable, and the warranty of merchantability is breached, by the existence of the unseen defect, not by its subsequent discovery. (Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 1297, 1304-05.) “Thus, although a defect may not be discovered for months or years after a sale, merchantability is evaluated as if the defect were known.” Mexia, supra, 174 Cal. App. 4th at 1305.
Statute of Limitations Under Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc.
“The Song-Beverly Act does not include its own statute of limitations.” (Id. at 1305 citing Krieger, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at 213,.) “California courts have held that the statute of limitations for an action for breach of warranty under the Song-Beverly Act is governed by the same statute that governs the statute of limitations for warranties arising under the Uniform Commercial Code: section 2725 of the Uniform Commercial Code.” (Id. citing Krieger, supra, at p. 215, 285 Cal.Rptr. 717; Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, 132; Carrau v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. (2001) 93 Cal. App. 4th 281, 297.) Under this statute:
An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued...
A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered.”
(Mexia, supra, 174 Cal. App. 4th at 1306 citing U.Com.Code, § 2725(1), (2).)
In Mexia, appellants conceded and the court agreed that “the statute of limitations for an action for breach of warranty under the Song-Beverly Act is four years pursuant to section 2725 of the Uniform Commercial Code.” (Id. citing Krieger, supra, 234 Cal. App. 3d at 215; Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 132, 41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 295.) “Under that statute, a cause of action for breach of warranty accrues, at the earliest, upon tender of delivery.” Id. citing U.Com.Code, Sec. 2725(2).)
Useful Rulings on Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability
King, Anna P. vs. Hyundai Motor America
Motion for Summary Adjudication Ruling on Request for Judicial Notice and Objections to Evidence Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted as to Exhibits D, H and N. Defendant’s request for judicial notice is denied as to Exhibits I through M. Plaintiff’s objections to evidence are sustained. Defendant’s objections to evidence are sustained. Ruling on Motion Defendant Hyundai Motor Americ...
..existence of a triable issue of material fact as to the cause of action or defense. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2). The trial court views the supporting evidence, and all inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843. Defendant argues that it has a complete defense to plaintiff’s claim for breac...
GOTTFRIED INSTITUTE VS. YOUBAR, INC.
gottfried institute, Plaintiff, v. YOUBAR, INC., Defendant. Case No.: EC067527 Hearing Date: February 23, 2018 [TENTATIVE] order RE: demurrer to complaint; motion to strike BACKGROUND In this action, Plaintiff Gottfried Institute (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant YouBar, Inc. (“Defendant”) breached the Wholesale Client Manufacturing Agreement that the parties entered into on May 2, 2017....
..sought compensation from Defendant pursuant to the indemnity provision, but Defendant refused to comply with its obligations and compensate Plaintiff for its losses. The complaint, filed October 27, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of warranty of merchantability; (2) breach of contract – fitness for a particular purpose; (3) breach of contract; (4) covenant of good faith and fair d...
BRENDA ROBERSON VS FCA US LLC ET AL
Defendant Worthington Ford, Inc.’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant to answer within 20 days. DEMURRER A demurrer should be sustained only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 430.30, et seq.) In particular, as is relevant here, a court should sustain a demurrer if a complaint does not allege facts that...
..ontext.” (Id. at p. 318; see also Hahn. v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 [“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. [Citation.]”) “In determining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer … if on consideration of all the f...
Recent Rulings on Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability
Demurrer / Motion To Strike (21)
Michael P. Linfield (105)
Richard J. Burdge (20)
Timothy Taylor (42)
Los Angeles County, CA (523)
“The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale. [Citations.] Indeed, “[u]ndisclosed latent defects ... are the very evil that the implied warranty of merchantability was designed to remedy.” [Citation.] In the case of a latent defect, a product is rendered unmerchantable, and the warranty of merchantability is breached, by the existence of the unseen defect, not by its subsequent discovery.” (Id. at 1304–1305.)
(“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for: Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civil Code Section 1793.2 Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section 1793.2 Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2 Breach of Express Written Warranty (Civil Code § 1791.2(a); § 1794) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civil Code § 1791.1; § 1794) A Trial Setting Conference is set for July 13, 2020.
BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s complaint arises from an alleged defective 2017 Lincoln MKX (the “Subject Vehicle”) that Plaintiff purchased, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of subdivision (D) of California Civil Code, Section 1793.2; (2) violation of subdivision (B) of California Civil Code, Section 1793.2; (3) violation of subdivision (A)(3) of California Civil Code, Section 1793.2; (4) breach of express warranty; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (6) fraud by omission.
· Plaintiff alleges that, in addition to the express warranty that Plaintiff received when purchasing the vehicle, “an implied warranty of merchantability was created under California law.” FAC, ¶ 93. · Plaintiff seeks remedies pursuant to, among other remedies, “California Commercial Code Sections 2711-2715…” FAC, ¶ 100 & Prayer for Relief §g. The court rejects Kia’s arguments that Plaintiff insufficiently pled the alleged defects and deformities on which Plaintiff bases his first cause of action.
Plaintiff alleges that, in addition to the express warranty that Plaintiff received when purchasing the vehicle, “an implied warranty of merchantability was created under California law.” FAC, ¶ 93. Plaintiff seeks remedies pursuant to, among other remedies, “California Commercial Code Sections 2711-2715…” FAC, ¶ 100 & Prayer for Relief §g. The court rejects Kia’s arguments that Plaintiff insufficiently pled the alleged defects and deformities on which Plaintiff bases his first cause of action.
Issue No.2: Existence of a Valid Arbitration Agreement Plaintiff asserts that the only claim asserted against Moving Defendant is for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiff contends that the RISC shows Moving Defendant’s clear intention to exclude warranty claims from the terms and conditions of the finance agreement.
(a); § 1794); Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civ. Code § 1791.1; § 1794; § 1795.5); and Fraud by Omission. On November 26, 2019, Defendant filed a demurrer with motion to strike as to the FAC. On February 3, 2020, the Court overruled Defendant’s demurrer and denied its motion to strike.
The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(d), (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(b), (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(a)(3), (4) breach of express written warranty, (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and (6) negligent repair. Plaintiff’s causes of action arise from her purchase of a 2013 BMW 535i (Vehicle). Discussion Defendants BMWNA and BH BMW move to compel Plaintiff to submit this action to binding arbitration.[1] A.
Breach of Warranty CACI number 1231 sets forth the elements for a products liability claim based on the implied warranty of merchantability. The elements include a showing that “at the time of purchase, [Coastal Oral] was in the business of selling these goods [or by [its] occupation held [itself] out as having special knowledge or skill regarding these goods].” (CACI No. 1231.)
Last, Defendant on reply asserts that Plaintiff’s eighth cause of action fails to state sufficient facts by addressing the implied warranty of merchantability. As this is not the claim of the eighth cause of action, the court does not sustain demurrer on these grounds. Based on the foregoing, Defendant O’Gara’s demurrer to the Seventh Cause of Action for Breach of Express Warranty, and Eighth Cause of Action for Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act are each overruled.
Damages for breach of an implied warranty is governed by Civil Code section 1791.1, subdivision (d) which provides, "Any buyer of consumer goods injured by a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability ... has the remedies provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 2601) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2701) of Division 2 of the [California Uniform] Commercial Code, and, in any action brought under such provisions, Section 1794 of this chapter shall apply."
(“Kia”) brings this demurrer to the third (violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3)), fifth (breach of the implied warranty of merchantability), sixth (fraud by omission), and seventh (violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act) causes of action of the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiffs Alexander Nabil Bassily and Nabil Bassily Sr. (jointly, “Plaintiffs”). Kia also moves to strike allegations relating to punitive damages from the FAC. Plaintiffs oppose.
In support of Defendant’s demurrer on both grounds, it first argues Plaintiffs’ second cause of action is improper because they combine two distinct claims therein, namely breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and breach of a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. In opposition, Plaintiffs state they are solely alleging breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and have adequately stated such a claim.
., negligent misrepresentation, violation of Civil Code section 1632, implied warranty of merchantability, and claim against surety against Defendants Super Calidad Auto Sales, Inc. (“Super Calidad”), Alaska USA Federal Credit Union (“Alaska”), and Washington International Insurance Company (“Washington”). On January 10, 2020, Alaska filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint against Super Calidad. On February 6, 2020, Washington was dismissed from the action.
JOSE PICENO VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
warranty of merchantability when it sold to plaintiff a vehicle that contains known defects at the time of sale.
MICHAEL VALENZUELA VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
The documents may also lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability by selling to Plaintiff a vehicle a known defect. For example, in Donlen v.
procedural history Yousefi filed the Complaint on January 7, 2020, alleging five causes of action: Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(d) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(b) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(a)(3) Violation of Civil Code §§1791.2(a); 1794(c) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability Tesla filed the present Motion to Compel Arbitration on February 27, 2020. Yousefi filed an Opposition on March 30, 2020. Tesla filed a Reply on June 24, 2020.
ANGELES MEJIA VS FCA US LLC
The documents may also lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability by selling to Plaintiff a vehicle with a known defect. For example, in Donlen v.
NICHOLAS FRANCO VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.
Plaintiff is asserting causes of action for (1) violation of Civil Code §1793.2(d), (2) violation of Civil Code §1793.2(b), (3) violation of Civil Code §1793.2(a)(3), (4) breach of express warranty under Civil Code §§1791.2, 1794, and (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Civil Code §§1791.1, 1794. In the motion, plaintiff explains that he presented the subject vehicle on at least six occasions with concerns relating to the severe engine and transmission defects.