Opinion ID: 2634622
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Definitions of Express Warranty and Service Contract

Text: An express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act is defined in section 1791.2 in pertinent part as follows: (a) ... A written statement arising out of a sale to the consumer of a consumer good pursuant to which the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer undertakes to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the consumer good or provide compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance; ... [¶] ... [¶] (b) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that formal words such as `warrant' or `guarantee' be used, but if such words are used then an express warranty is created. An affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely an opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty. [¶] (c) Statements or representations such as expressions of general policy concerning customer satisfaction which are not subject to any limitation do not create an express warranty. Section 1791, subdivision ( o ) provides: `Service contract' means a contract in writing to perform, for an additional cost, over a fixed period of time or for a specified duration, services relating to the maintenance, replacement, or repair of a consumer product, except that this term does not include a policy of automobile insurance, as defined in Section 116 of the Insurance Code. DaimlerChrysler argues that an express warranty arises out of the sale of a consumer good (see § 1791.2, subd. (a)) because it is a representation integrally included in the purchase price; a service contract does not because it offers additional performance purchased for `additional cost.' (See § 1791, subd. ( o ).) Moreover, it argues, section 1794. 4 addresses the sale of a service contract, implying that a service contract is sold separately from the consumer good, and therefore cannot be said to arise out of the sale of the latter. Gavaldon points out, however, that the purchase of her automobile and her service contract were part of the same transaction, concluded at the same time, and therefore the service contract would be reasonably understood to arise out of the sale of the automobile. (See Reveles, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1155-1156, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 543.) We need not decide which party has the better argument. As discussed below, another reason supports the conclusion that DaimlerChrysler's position is correct.