Opinion ID: 1767013
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether mercury marine's repair or replace warranty failed of its essential purpose.

Text: ¶ 16. During the discussion on jury instructions, the trial court stated the following when it decided to permit an instruction on failure of essential purpose: I am prepared to instruct the jury that the specific warranty here and limitations in the warranty failed of its essential purpose because under the facts of this case, the Mercury warranty did not do Mr. Travis or Clear River any good when he was out there in the middle of the ocean trying to engage in tournament fishing, and the engines went out or either didn't work to start with or went out in the middle of tournaments. Reasoning that a motor malfunction in the ocean justifies an instruction on failure of essential purpose is untenable. ¶ 17. Under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-719(2), Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this Code. While Section 75-2-719(2) clearly allows a plaintiff to seek redress under the Code, it fails to define a failure of essential purpose, much less its application to a repair or replace warranty. That aside, academic commentary has noted: The purpose of a repair-or-replace contracted remedy is to give the buyer what he bargained for, namely goods that measure up to the contract, and to expand the seller's right to cure beyond the bounds established by Section 2-508. This purpose is defeated if the goods are destroyed by their own flaws so that repair or replacement are totally unsatisfactory.