Opinion ID: 1319025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did appellant breach an express warranty?

Text: As noted previously, § 34-21-230, W.S. 1977 (UCC § 2-313), governs claims for express warranties in Wyoming. See: § 34-21-230, supra n. 1. A portion of that statute provides that any description of the goods which the parties make a basis of the bargain creates an express warranty, and the goods sold must conform to the description. Section 34-21-230(a)(ii), supra n. 1. Also, the statute provides that the seller need not specifically use the words warrant or guarantee or even intend to expressly warrant in order for the court to determine that a warranty was in fact made. Section 34-21-230(b), supra n. 1. Thus, it is necessary to consider whether or not the agreement between the parties evidences any description or promise made by Albin Elevator which became a basis of the bargain. Shepard v. Top Hat Land & Cattle Co., Wyo., 560 P.2d 730 (1977). Secondly, if plaintiff-appellee is able to demonstrate the existence of an express warranty, he must then prove that the warranty was breached and that he was damaged as a result. Kure v. Chevrolet Motor Division, Wyo., 581 P.2d 603, 608 (1978); Colorado Serum Company v. Arp, Wyo., 504 P.2d 801, 805 (1972). Given the facts surrounding the sale of the wheat seed, we conclude that the trial court acted properly in deciding that Albin Elevator had expressly warranted to Mike Pavlica that he was purchasing spring wheat. The description is plainly reflected in the sales ticket, signed by one of appellant's employees, where the recitation approves to the effect that Albin delivered 216.3 bushels of spring wheat to appellee. According to the testimony, Albin was informed by Pavlica prior to the sale that he desired spring wheat for planting purposes. These facts establish that Albin expressly warranted to sell Pavlica spring wheat and such assurances were made a basis of the bargain. An express warranty was given by Albin under § 34-21-230(a)(ii), W.S. 1977. It further appears that plaintiff-appellee presented substantial uncontradicted evidence to the effect that the express warranty was breached. At trial, Dr. Kolp, plaintiff-appellee's witness, testified that, in his opinion, the plants he observed on the farm were winter wheat sprouts and not spring wheat. Thus, the evidence reveals that Pavlica thought he was buying and planting spring wheat when in fact he was sold winter wheat seeds. It was also not disputed that winter wheat seeds would not produce a crop at the time plaintiff-appellee planted them. Clearly, Albin did not sell plaintiff what it had warranted to sell. Considering the evidence, Albin's argument that it did not warrant to sell Pavlica spring wheat seed but only spring wheat requires little discussion. We say this because the facts reflect that Albin delivered winter wheat rather than spring wheat and that fact in itself was a sufficient basis for the trial court to conclude that Albin had breached the warranty.