Opinion ID: 4544659
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kelly Lacked Privity of Contract with Newmar.

Text: The Magnuson-Moss Act provides a cause of action for a “consumer” damaged by a supplier’s breach of an implied warranty. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1). The Act defines “implied warranty” as “an implied warranty arising under State law . . . in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product.” Id. § 2301(7). Under Florida law, a consumer must enjoy privity of contract with a supplier to recover for breach of an implied warranty. Mesa v. BMW of North Am., LLC, 904 So. 2d 450, 458 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (“[A] plaintiff cannot recover economic losses for breach of implied warranty in the absence of privity.”); see Rentas v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 936 So. 2d 747, 751 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (affirming dismissal of claim based on Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act for breach of implied warranty due to lack of privity between buyers of used vehicle and its manufacturer). That is, a consumer must purchase the product from the supplier because “a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.” Fla. Stat. § 672.314(1). Kelly lacked contractual privity with Newmar. Kelly purchased her vehicle from and entered into a contract with North Trail. Her complaint identified North 7 Case: 19-14955 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 8 of 10 Trail as the “seller.” And she acknowledged in the purchase contract that she “understood . . . [North Trail] is in no respect the agent” of the manufacturer. Kelly argues that Global Quest, 849 F.3d 1022, establishes she that enjoys contractual privity with Newmar based on its written warranty, but we disagree. We concluded in Global Quest that an issue of material fact existed whether privity existed between the consumer and manufacturer because the written warranty was made an addendum to the purchase contract, the seller was an agent of the manufacturer, the seller and manufacturer had similar names, and an executive for the manufacturer owned part of the seller. Id. at 1025, 1032. Kelly presented no evidence that the limited express warranty was made part of her contract with North Trail or that Newmar was involved in the sale. Indeed, Kelly admitted that she had no contact with Newmar before her purchase.