Opinion ID: 2281968
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: breach of warranty and contract claims

Text: After a two-month examination period at the Phenix Quarry, Crush purchased the T1055 from Vermeer's dealer, Great Plains, in October 2002. Vermeer issued a written limited warranty to the owner against defects in material and workmanship for one year or 1,000 operating hours. [5] The warranty contained numerous terms, exclusions, and limitations. It provided that, during the warranty period, Vermeer was obligated to repair or replace (at its option) any defect in material or workmanship. [6] The warranty did not obligate Vermeer to repair or replace any defect if the defect was caused by other than normal use. It disclaimed all implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. [7] The warranty also purported to limit Vermeer's liability to the purchase price of the T1055 [8] and to exclude liability for any incidental or consequential damages, including loss of profits and out-of-service time. [9] The warranty did not specifically identify the warrantee, although Crush was specified as the owner. While it imposed responsibility for proper maintenance and periodic inspections on the retail purchaser, the warranty did not state either that it extended to subsequent purchasers or that it was limited to the original retail purchaser. Moreover, no term in the warranty forbade the assignment of rights or obligations by any party. The plaintiffs claim relief for breach of express warranty on two theories. Renaissance argues that it holds rights under the written warranty because Crush transferred the T1055 and assigned its warranty to Renaissance in December 2002. TEAM argues that it holds Crush's claim for breach of express warranty because all of Crush's assets, including any breach of warranty claims, were assigned to TEAM by Uhlmann upon the dissolution of Crush/ Mo-Kan in June 2004. [10] Neither of the plaintiffs' theories fits within the typical remote purchaser breach-of-warranty scenario, in which an original purchaser attempts to sue the manufacturer of a good rather than the dealer who sold the good. Instead, in this case, Renaissance is in the position of a subsequent or second-hand buyer from the original purchaser, while TEAM is simply the assignee of a contract right.