Court Opinion

ID: 9551826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:59:59.931794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:47.886089
License: Public Domain

Neill, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the result but have not signed the majority opinion as I believe it is inappropriate to commingle considerations regarding the application of the parol evidence rule to implied warranties of *197contract with considerations pertaining to the strict tort liability of a manufacturer. Further, the conclusion that waivers are ineffectual “unless explicitly negotiated between buyer and seller and set forth with particularity showing the particular qualities and characteristics of fitness which are being waived” is too restrictive. A rule which requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the purchaser was specifically made aware that he was waiving warranties is sufficient to protect the buyer from surprise without unduly restricting freedom of contract. This also comports with the current statutory law of sales. RCW 62A.2-202; RCW 62A.2-316. See Broude, The Consumer and the Parol Evidence Rule: Section 2-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 5 Duke L.J. 881 (1970).
Stafford and McGovern, JJ., concur with Neill, J.
Petition for rehearing denied June 4, 1971.