Also known as: U.C.C. § 2-314(1) · Uniform Commercial Code § 2-314(1) · implied warranty of merchantability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory rule that implies a warranty of merchantability in a contract for the sale of goods if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. The warranty requires that the goods pass without objection in the trade under the contract description, be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, and meet the other standards listed in subsection (2).
Uriah Urban bought industrial pumps from Upstream Petroleum, a regular dealer in such equipment. The sales contract contained a clause stating only that the pumps were sold as is. When the pumps failed during normal refinery operations, Uriah sued for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The court held that the warranty arose under section 2-314(1) because the attempted disclaimer did not mention merchantability or appear conspicuously.
Umar Usmani purchased a pneumatic tool from a merchant supplier for use in his auto repair shop. The tool exploded during ordinary use, injuring Umar. He sued the supplier alleging breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The court found that the tool failed to meet ordinary safety expectations for tools of that kind, establishing a breach under the merchantability standard.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Una Ueda installed flexible piping purchased from a merchant supplier in a residential heating system. The piping ruptured under normal operating pressures, causing water damage. She sued the supplier for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The court determined that the goods did not satisfy the ordinary-purpose requirement because they could not withstand foreseeable residential use.
Ursula Ung bought an SUV from a dealer that regularly sold vehicles to the public. The vehicle overturned during routine highway driving, injuring Ursula. She sued the manufacturer and dealer for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The court held that the vehicle failed to meet merchantability standards because it was not fit for its ordinary on-road use despite its off-road design.
Uriel Urban received silicone breast implants manufactured by a medical device merchant. The implants ruptured years later, causing health complications. He sued the manufacturer for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The court found that the implants did not satisfy the ordinary-purpose standard for safe, long-term implantation.
Unity Underhill purchased a new car from a dealer that regularly sold vehicles. The steering mechanism failed during normal city driving, causing an accident. She sued the dealer and manufacturer for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The court concluded that the car did not pass without objection in the trade and was unfit for ordinary driving purposes.
The warranty arises automatically in a contract for the sale of goods if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. It applies unless properly excluded or modified under section 2-316. Merchant status is shown when the seller regularly deals in goods of the kind sold.
Goods must pass without objection in the trade under the contract description, be of fair average quality if fungible, fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, run within permitted variations of even kind quality and quantity, be adequately contained packaged and labeled, and conform to any promises on the container or label.
Merchantability requires goods to be fit for ordinary purposes and meet trade standards. Fitness for a particular purpose requires the seller to know of the buyer's specific non-ordinary purpose and the buyer's reliance on the seller's skill or judgment in selecting the goods.
…negligence counts were dismissed by the court and the cause was submitted to the jury for determination solely on the issues of implied warranty of merchantability. Verdicts were returned against both defendants and in favor of the plaintiffs. Defendants appealed and plaintiffs cross-appealed from the dismissal of their negligence claim. The matter…