Opinion ID: 776312
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiffs' Breach of Warranty Claim

Text: 26 In support of their breach of warranty claim, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants made knowingly false statements as to the health dangers of smoking and the addictive qualities of nicotine through advertising and public statements. The Plaintiffs claim these statements formed the basis of the bargain for themselves and others in both starting and continuing to smoke. Specifically, Plaintiffs point to statements Defendants made from 1954 to 1994. 27 As the district court correctly noted, any statement made before May 5, 1993 is barred by limitations. 1 Thus, the only relevant representation relied upon by the Plaintiffs is a 1994 statement by major cigarette manufacturer executives before the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, that nicotine is not addictive. 2 The Plaintiffs contend that, despite this statement in 1994, the Defendants have known cigarettes were addictive since the early 1960s. 28 An express warranty is [a]ny affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain. TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE 2.313(a)(1); American Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 436 (Tex.1997). Only sellers — not trade associations — may be liable for breach of express warranties. Allgood v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 80 F.3d 168, 170-71 (5th Cir.1996). Accordingly, judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Defendant trade associations on Plaintiffs' express warranty claims was proper. 29 The Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claims against the remaining Defendants necessarily fail as well. Defendants' statements before Congress were made forty-two years after the Plaintiffs became addicted to cigarettes. Thus, these statements cannot have formed the basis of the bargain for the Plaintiffs' initial purchase of cigarettes. See generally Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d at 436 (explaining that basis of the bargain is analogous to the common law reliance element). And, to the extent Plaintiffs' argument rests on the contention that they continued to smoke in reliance on the Defendants' 1994 statement, we agree with the district court that any express warranty within the limitations period was negated by the common knowledge that smoking is addictive and dangerous to one's health. Cf. Allgood, 80 F.3d at 172 (holding manufacture had no duty to warn of the dangers of smoking because the dangers of cigarette smoking have long been known to the community).