Opinion ID: 879372
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Merchantability

Text: The District Court also granted a directed verdict on the McJunkins' claim of breach of the implied warranty of merchantability because it is excluded by the express language of the sales document. The language in question provides: 8. WARRANTIES: THE DEALER SHALL GIVE OVER TO THE BUYER COPIES OF ANY AND ALL WRITTEN WARRANTIES COVERING THE WITHIN DESCRIBED UNIT, OR ANY APPLIANCE OR COMPONENT THEREIN, WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE MANUFACTURER OF THE UNIT OR APPLIANCE OR COMPONENT, RESPECTIVELY. IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT EXCEPT AS MAY BE REQUIRED UNDER APPLICABLE STATE LAW THE DEALER MAKES NO WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER REGARDING THE UNIT OR ANY APPLIANCE OR COMPONENT CONTAINED THEREIN. THE DEALER EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR USE. (Emphasis in original.) The McJunkins contend that the disclaimer is invalid because there is no evidence they ever saw or were made aware of the disclaimer, nor were they made aware of its significance. Section 30-2-316, MCA, does not require that a disclaimer of implied warranties be specifically pointed out to the consumer. In order to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous... . Section 30-2-316(2), MCA. In the instant case, the disclaimer was not hidden in the fine print. The language was in larger, darker, bolder type. It was also capitalized and underlined. The fact that the disclaimer appeared on the back of the purchase agreement is not per se sufficient to render the disclaimer ineffective. It is fundamental that a person is presumed to have read the contractual agreements that they enter into. We find that the disclaimer at issue satisfies the requirements of § 30-2-316(2), MCA. See Schlenz v. John Deer Co. (D.Mont. 1981), 511 F. Supp. 224, 228.