Also known as: implied warranties for a particular purpose · implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose · fitness for particular purpose · warranty of fitness
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An implied warranty arising under the Uniform Commercial Code in contracts for the sale of goods. It attaches when the seller has reason to know the buyer's particular purpose for the goods and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select suitable goods. The warranty assures that the goods will be fit for that specific purpose.
Ines Ibarra purchased a newly constructed coastal cottage from a training company that had bought it directly from the builder. She discovered extensive termite damage because the builder failed to install required barriers. Ibarra sued the builder for breach of the implied warranty. The court dismissed the claim because Ibarra lacked privity with the builder.
Ironclad Industries bought specialized machinery from a supplier after describing its need for high-volume wetland-safe operation. The supplier recommended a standard model. The contract contained a conspicuous written clause stating there are no warranties extending beyond the description on the face of the agreement. When the machinery failed in the wetland setting, the disclaimer barred the fitness claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ingrid Innes bought a new car from a dealer after telling the salesperson she needed a vehicle safe for family use on rural roads. The car had a latent steering defect that caused an accident. Innes sued the manufacturer under an implied warranty theory. The court examined whether the warranty extended despite lack of direct privity.
Imani Idowu received a federally approved medical device that later malfunctioned. She sued the manufacturer alleging breach of an implied warranty of fitness for her particular medical needs. The manufacturer argued federal requirements preempted the state warranty claim. The court analyzed whether the warranty claim imposed additional requirements.
Iris Irons purchased a truck advertised for off-road use after describing her need for reliable performance on steep trails. The truck rolled over during normal trail use. Irons sued the manufacturer on both implied warranty and strict liability theories. The court considered how the fitness warranty interacts with design defect claims.
Igor Ito bought heavy equipment after explaining his need for safe operation on uneven construction sites. The equipment tipped during ordinary use. Ito pursued both a design defect claim and an implied warranty of fitness claim. The court evaluated the relationship between the two theories in assessing liability.
The seller must have reason to know the buyer's particular purpose at contracting. The buyer must also be relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select suitable goods. If both elements are met and the goods fail to meet the purpose, the warranty is breached unless properly disclaimed.
Supporting sources
A particular purpose is a specific need communicated by the buyer that goes beyond ordinary uses. Merchantability covers fitness for common purposes in the trade. The distinction matters because de-icing a bridge is ordinary while safe use over protected wetlands is particular.
Supporting sources
Recovery is possible if the seller knew the particular purpose and the buyer relied on the recommendation. The fact that the product was a standard model does not automatically defeat the warranty when the seller was aware of the specialized need and made the recommendation.
Supporting sources
…on Sales , § 243 (Rev. ed. 1948). As Judge (later Justice) Cardozo remarked in Ryan, supra , the distinction between a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and of merchantability in many instances is practically meaningless. In the particular case he was concerned with food for human consumption in a sealed container.…