Opinion ID: 2045861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: magnuson-moss warranty act

Text: Finally, we address whether summary judgment was appropriate for the Stoneses' claim against Sears under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Enacted in 1975, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. (1994)) created a federal remedy for breach of written and implied warranties. Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864 (Iowa 1996). This remedy is specifically set forth at § 2310(d)(1), which provides that a consumer who is damaged by the failure of a supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to comply with any obligation ... under a written warranty, implied warranty, or service contract, may bring suit for damages and other legal or equitable relief.... In addition, a consumer who prevails under this section may recover attorney fees, as well as the costs and expenses associated with the action. § 2310(d)(2). For purposes of the act, the term implied warranty is defined as an implied warranty arising under State law.... § 2301(7). The broad assignment of error in this matter is not helpful in ascertaining why the Stoneses believe summary judgment was inappropriate for their Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act cause of action. However, in their brief, the Stoneses argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on this issue as it relates to the issue of breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Brief for appellant at 30. Having determined that summary judgment was appropriate for the breach of implied warranty for a particular purpose cause of action, it follows that summary judgment was also appropriate on the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act cause of action.