Opinion ID: 1676987
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Breach of Warranty Count

Text: In the first count of their complaint, the Rhodeses seek damages from General Motors for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Ala.Code 1975, § 7-2-314. General Motors asserts that it cannot be held liable under this theory because Jones, not General Motors, was the seller of the automobile. We note that each section in the Uniform Commercial Code dealing with implied warranties places obligations on the seller of goods. In this case, General Motors was the manufacturer of the automobile, and Jones was the seller. § 7-2-103(1)(d). In Wellcraft Marine v. Zarzour, 577 So.2d 414 (Ala.1990), we stated: There is no right of action on an implied warranty theory against a manufacturer for property damage without privity of contract. 577 So.2d at 419. (Emphasis in Wellcraft. ) Similarly, we conclude that, without privity of contract, there is no right of action against a manufacturer for direct economic loss. [3] The Rhodeses contend that in extending a written warranty, General Motors created privity of contract with the Rhodeses. When presented with a similar contention in Wellcraft, we held: Regardless of any express warranties that a manufacturer may wish to give with a product, by their very language the commercial code's implied warranty sections apply to the seller of the product. Id. at 419. (Emphasis added.) We see no reason to disturb that holding in this case. Accordingly, as to the count alleging a breach of implied warranty, the summary judgment in favor of General Motors is affirmed. In Count II of their complaint, the Rhodeses allege that General Motors breached its express written warranty. The written limited warranty provides that General Motors will pay for the costs of any repairs to the vehicle necessitated by defects in materials or workmanship during the applicable warranty period. It is undisputed that each time the Rhodeses brought the vehicle in for repairs, it was repaired and General Motors paid all charges for the repair. The Rhodeses produced no evidence that the September 26, 1989, repair failed to remedy the car's transmission problem. [4] There is no evidence that while the Rhodeses had possession of the car it ever stopped or failed to operate. After considering the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the trial judge correctly held that the Rhodeses had failed to present substantial evidence in support of their breach of warranty claim. See, Belcher v. Versatile Farm Equipment Co., 443 So.2d 912 (Ala.1983); Dickson v. U-J Chevrolet Co., 454 So.2d 964 (Ala. 1984). Accordingly, as to the count alleging a breach of the express warranty, the summary judgment in favor of General Motors is affirmed.