Opinion ID: 1870460
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Express Warranty Claim

Text: At the trial level, Pappas contended that Ricwil and Dowdy expressly warranted that the Copper-Gard would withstand water temperatures up to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. Ricwil and Dowdy argued that only one express warranty was made: a warranty against defects in material and workmanship found on the face sheet of the installation manual. Further, Ricwil and Dowdy argued that this warranty against defects in material and workmanship was limited to one year after shipment of the pipe. We conclude that two express warranties were made, with the one-year limitation applying only to the warranty against defects. Section 7-2-313(1)(b) states, Express warranties by the seller are created as follows: Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description. The product brochure sent to Pappas as part of Dowdy's submittal states, in large bold letters: Preinsulated Piping System for Buried Hot and Chilled Water, Domestic Hot Water and Condensate Lines to 250 [degrees] F[ahrenheit]. Further, a more detailed description of the Copper-Gard system includes the following: Pressure-Temperature Rating: 150 psig continuous working pressure through a temperature range of -40 [degrees] F[ahrenheit] to [plus] 250 [degrees] F[ahrenheit]. These descriptions of the Copper-Gard system became part of the basis of the bargain because Pappas specifically requested pipe that would meet contract specifications. Sonny Marshton testified that contract specifications called for pipe that would withstand water temperatures of at least 240 degrees Fahrenheit. (R. at 45.) Thus, it is clear that an express warranty as to temperature was made, in addition to the warranty as to defects in material and workmanship. [1] Section 7-2-316(1) states: Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to negate or limit warranty shall be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but subject to the provisions of this article on parol or extrinsic evidence (section 7-2-202) negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable. Consistent with the mandate of § 7-2-316(1), it is reasonable to conclude that two warranties have been made here: one as to defects in material and workmanship, which was limited by the one-year provision in the installation manual, and one as to the Copper-Gard system's ability to withstand hot water temperatures, which was not limited. Thus, the trial court did not err in submitting the breach-of-express-warranty claim to the jury. [2]