Court Opinion

ID: 9713700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:20:21.570864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:20.022240
License: Public Domain

Singley, J.,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. In matters involving statutory construction, I follow Lord Mildew’s dictum in Bluff v. Father Gray, “If Parliament does not mean what it says, it must say so.” 1 New legislative enactments have been the subject of the extensive consideration and discussion accorded the Uniform Commercial Code, see Bona v. Graefe, 264 Md. 69, 285 A. 2d 607 (1972). I simply remain unpersuaded that the prepositional phrase “Notwithstanding subsection (2)” with which subsection 2-316 (3) of the Uniform Commercial Code begins means anything other than all implied warranties are excluded when goods are sold “as is” or “with all faults,” in spite of 2 the conspicuousness required for the exclusion or modification of an implied warranty of merchantability or of fitness by § 2-316 (2).
*192Even Dean Hawkland, relied on in Gindy Mfg. Corp. v. Cardinale Trucking Corp., 111 N. J. Super. 383, 268 A. 2d 345 (1970) and by the majority, concedes that “[wjhile the subsection [2-316 (3) (a)] does not explicitly so provide, it would seem that these phrases and expressions [“as is,” “with all faults”] would have to be stated conspicuously to become effective disclaimers.” 3 It seems to me that the short answer to this argument is that if this is what the draftsmen meant, they could easily have said so.
Since I find nothing ambiguous or obscure in the language used, I would answer the first certified question in the negative.
Judges Smith and O’Donnell authorize me to say that they join in the views herein expressed.

. A. P. Herbert, Uncommon Law, 192 (1936).

. When used as a preposition, “notwithstanding” has the meaning “in spite of,” Webster’s New International Dictionary 1669 (2d ed. 1944).

. Hawkland, Limitation of Warranty Under the Uniform Commercial Code, 11 Howard L. J. 28, 32 (1965).