Opinion ID: 1923339
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: exclusion of warranties

Text: At trial, Delkamp argued that Scientific had breached implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose and an express warranty that he would be able to cover 6,000 square feet per day. Scientific contends that Delkamp cannot recover on the basis of breach of warranty as he had notice of the limitations of warranty found in the dealer's contract he received from Scientific even though he did not sign it. See footnote 1. Sections 41-02-30, 41-02-31, and 41-02-32, N.D.C.C., set out the requirements of an express warranty, and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The question whether or not an express warranty is given is a question of fact for the jury. Autzen v. John C. Taylor Lumber Sales, Inc., 280 Or. 783, 572 P.2d 1322, 1326 (1977). An implied warranty of merchantability is deemed to have been given unless excluded or modified. § 41-02-31, N.D.C.C. Whether or not such a warranty is excluded or modified is a question of fact for the jury. Knipp v. Weinbaum, 351 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1977). Whether or not an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is given is also a question of fact for the jury. Singer Co. v. E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co., 579 F.2d 433, 439 (8th Cir. 1978). While all warranties may properly be excluded, [2] such exclusion must be part of the basis of the bargain between the parties. Knipp v. Weinbaum, supra, 351 So.2d at 1085. We agree with what the Court of Appeals of Washington said in DeCoria v. Red's Trailer Mart, Inc., 5 Wash.App. 892, 491 P.2d 241 (1972): Disclaimers of warranty are disfavored in the law and are ineffectual unless explicitly negotiated between buyer and seller and set forth with particularity showing the particular qualities and characteristics of fitness which are being waived. 491 P.2d at 244. Mere notice of limitations of warranty which are not incorporated into the contract and therefore not a basis of the bargain is insufficient to prevent a buyer from seeking recovery for breach of warranty. Rehurek v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 262 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1972). In this case, Delkamp did not sign the dealer contract containing the limitations of warranty. The only contract was one prepared, signed, and sent to Scientific by Delkamp granting him an exclusive dealership area. There was no evidence that any limitation of warranty was the basis of the bargain. As mere notice in an unsigned dealer contract is insufficient to limit either express or implied warranties, and there was no other evidence concerning limitations of warranty, Delkamp was not precluded from claiming under a breach of warranty. The questions whether or not the Spraylock was defective and whether or not Delkamp misused the product were questions of fact for the jury. Richelman v. Kewanee Machinery & Conveyor Co., 59 Ill.App.3d 578, 16 Ill.Dec. 778, 375 N.E.2d 885, 889 (1978); Times Mirror Co. v. Sisk, 122 Ariz. 174, 593 P.2d 924, 929 (Ct.App. 1979). Delkamp testified he had problems with lumps in the resin, insufficient pump power, the Spraylock peeled, the tires fell off the machine, and he could not cover the number of square feet he had been told he would be able to do. The problems with the machine and inconsistency of the Spraylock were corroborated by testimony of another Spraylock dealer. There was also extensive testimony by Delkamp as to his preparation of surfaces and use of the Spraylock. Scientific alleged that the problems were caused by misuse of the product. This was a question of fact for the jury. There is substantial evidence to support the jury's determination that the defects in the product breached the warranties given by Scientific and that Delkamp did not misuse the product. In a case involving the sufficiency of the evidence, a jury's determination will be upheld if there is substantial evidence to support it. See Grzadzielewski v. Walsh County Mut. Ins. Co., 297 N.W.2d 780, 785 (N.D.1980).