Opinion ID: 1144928
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: defense of disclaimer

Text: Seller's principal complaint is that the court erred in failing to give a requested instruction on the main theory of defense and in charging, instead, upon the buyer's theory of an implied-warranty claim. We are urged that error is to be deemed reversible when the court fails or refuses, as it did here, to instruct the jury upon a vital issue or theory of defense which is supported by the evidence. [19] Seller's objection to the express-warranty instruction is that it failed to inform the jury of the existence and the legal effect of the disclaimer in the text of express warranty by which seller claims to be relieved of liability for breach of implied warranty. We agree with this contention because the seller's complaint goes to the very crux of defense theory. Since the case must be retried for the reasons stated earlier in this opinion, it suffices to say here the jury should have been instructed that if they found the warranty printed in the manual had reached the hands of the buyer  when the combine was sold  and he had ample opportunity to gain knowledge of its contents from a conspicuous text, [20] the disclaimer clause in the warranty so received operated to bar buyer's claim for breach of an implied warranty. JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL. [21] LAVENDER, C.J., IRWIN, V.C.J., and WILLIAMS, HODGES, BARNES, SIMMS and HARGRAVE, JJ., concurring.