Opinion ID: 1479434
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Breach of an Express Warranty

Text: General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 6A-2-313 sets forth the necessary requisites of proof in order to prevail on a claim for a breach of an express warranty by affirmation or promise. [3] The plaintiff contends that the label on Nature Shower expressly warranted that its use leaves skin feeling silky clean    Gentle for all uses and that everyone in the family will enjoy the convenience of this versatile body cleanser for bathing, showering and handwashing. The plaintiff asserts that this express warranty was breached because she suffered a rash after using this product. Although the trial justice's assertion that it [Nature Shower] can be gentle but result in a rash is inherently contradictory, especially when read in conjunction with the for all uses language, [4] he was correct in directing a verdict on defendant's behalf with respect to this issue. The plaintiff who claims breach of express warranty has the burden of proving that the statements or representations made by the seller induced her to purchase that product and that she relied upon such statements or representations. Rogers v. Zielinski, 99 R.I. 599, 603-04, 209 A.2d 706, 708 (1965) (this case was decided under § 6-3-12, which was recodified in 1969 as § 6A-2-313); Alan Wood Steel Co. v. Capital Equipment Enterprises, Inc., 39 Ill. App.3d 48, 53-55, 349 N.E.2d 627, 632-33 (1976). In the case at bar, defendant had not printed on the bottle that the product would not produce a rash, thus plaintiff had no representation to rely upon. As the trial justice properly noted, [t]here is no evidence in this case that Mrs. Thomas made her bargain on anything contained on the container. Without this evidence, we affirm the trial justice's decision that plaintiff cannot recover for breach of express warranty.