Opinion ID: 2273514
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Breach of Implied Warranties

Text: For his third point on appeal, Pilcher argues that it was error for the trial court to conclude that this was an as is sale of used goods and that there were no implied warranties of merchantability or of fitness for a particular purpose. According to Pilcher, there was no valid exclusion of these implied warranties. Specifically, Pilcher points to the fact that the contract of sale from Suttle to Pilcher did not contain a written memorialization that it was an as is sale and, thus, the implied warranties should apply. Appellees counter that even if the implied warranties apply to the sale of used goods, Pilcher understood that this was an as is sale thereby negating any implied warranties. The exclusion or modification of implied warranties is governed by Ark.Code Ann. § 4-2-316 (Repl.2001), which provides in relevant part: (1) 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 chapter on parol or extrinsic evidence (§ 4-2-202) negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable. (2) Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof. (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2): (a) unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like as is, with all faults or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty; and (b) when the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the goods or the sample or model as fully as he desired or has refused to examine the goods there is no implied warranty with regard to defects which an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to him[.] In O'Mara v. Dykema, 328 Ark. 310, 319, 942 S.W.2d 854, 859 (1997), this court interpreted section 4-2-316 and held that all implied warranties are excluded by expressions such as as is, with all faults, or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty. Here, Pilcher testified that he knew that this was an as is sale of a used product. He further admitted that he purchased the Hydro-Ax after being allowed to demo it for two days at his job site. According to Pilcher, he was allowed ample opportunity to inspect the Hydro-Ax. He further admitted that no one from Suttle made any representations to him about the quality of the machine. Suffice it to say, this testimony is sufficient to demonstrate that any implied warranty of merchantability that may have existed was excluded. Moreover, the fact that there was no written exclusion of the implied warranty of fitness does not provide Pilcher with relief because subsection (3) of section 4-2-316 negates the necessity of a writing in an as is sale. Finally, pursuant to section 4-2-316(3)(b), any implied warranties were excluded because prior to Suttle's sale of the Hydro-Ax, Pilcher was allowed to inspect and use the machine for two days. Assuming, arguendo, that the inoperability of the fire suppression system was a defect, Pilcher had ample opportunity to discover such a defect. Accordingly, there was no genuine issue of material fact with regard to the breach of any implied warranties; thus, it was appropriate for the trial court to grant summary judgment on this claim.