Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – W > Warranties-Implied Warranty of Fitness

Warranties-Implied Warranty of Fitness

Fairfax Injury Lawyer Brien Roche Addresses Warranties-Implied Warranty of Fitness

Brien Roche


This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Warranties-Implied Warranty of Fitness.  

Warranties-Implied Warranty of Fitness-Statutes


See Va. Code § 8.2-315 indicating that implied warranty arises if seller knows purpose for which goods required and buyer relies on seller’s skill.

Warranties-ImpLied Warranty of Fitness-Cases

1999 Bayliner Marine Corp. v. Crow, 257 Va. 121, 509 S.E.2d 499.

Plaintiff purchased boat for offshore fishing. Plaintiff maintained that particular purpose for which boat was intended was for offshore fishing with maximum speed of 30 miles per hour. To establish that, plaintiff must show that he made known to seller particular purpose for which goods were required. Evidence fails to establish this, as such, there is failure to establish breach of implied warranty of fitness.

1986 Medcom, Inc. v. C. Arthur Weaver Co., 232 Va. 80, 348 S.E.2d 243.

In order to recover under Va. Code § 8.2-315, buyer must prove: (1) seller had reason to know the particular purpose for goods, (2) seller had reason to know buyer relying on sellers skill and judgment, (3) buyer in fact relied on such.

1982 Southern States Coop. v. Doggett, 223 Va. 650, 292 S.E.2d 331.

Action for breach of warranty of implied merchantability or fitness, where cattle had been poisoned by phorate allegedly contained in feed supplement. Circumstantial evidence held sufficient to create jury issue. To recover, plaintiff must show: (1) product unreasonably dangerous for use to which it is ordinarily put; and (2) condition existed when product left defendant’s hands.

1980 Leake v. Meredith, 221 Va. 14, 267 S.E.2d 93.

Virginia Code § 8.2-315 not applicable to chattel leases.

1980 Leake v. Meredith, 221 Va. 14, 267 S.E.2d 93.

Plaintiff rented ladder and was injured when ladder broke. UCC implied warranty of fitness not applicable.

1975 Turner v. Manning, 216 Va. 245, 217 S.E.2d 863.

Evidence that purchaser ordered product for specified purpose and relied on manufacturer’s judgment to supply product suitable for purpose, would present jury issue as to breach of implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose.

1974 Layne-Atlantic Co. v. Koppers Co., 214 Va. 467, 201 S.E.2d 609.

Implied warranty of fitness arises when seller has reason to know particular purpose for which goods are required and that buyer is relying on seller’s skill to select suitable goods. In this case, buyer used product (pipe) in manner not specified. Discussion of several implied warranty cases.

1965 Brockett v. Harrell Bros., 206 Va. 457, 143 S.E.2d 897.

Implied warranty of fitness is imposed as to manufacturer of food sold in sealed container to retailer who in turn sells it to consumer who is injured as result of impurities in product which existed before product left manufacturer’s hands. Implied warranty also applies if retailer does not sell it in closed container, and in such case, implied warranty applies to manufacturer and retailer.

1961 Harris v. Hampton Rds. Tractor Co., 202 Va. 958, 121 S.E.2d 471.

Plaintiff was employee of purchaser of crane. Plaintiff was injured in use of crane. There exists no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant and therefore, no implied warranty. However, lack of privity is not complete defense in sale of certain food stuffs.

1955 Gleason & Co. v. International Harvester, 197 Va. 255, 88 S.E.2d 904.

Implied warranty by seller that defective coupling device for tractor-trailer would be suitable for purpose intended, particularly where seller omitted to make reasonable inspection which would have disclosed defect.

1953 Swersky v. Higgins, 194 Va. 983, 76 S.E.2d 200.

Sale of paint and its application by defendant gave rise to implied warranty that it was reasonably fit for purpose for which it was applied. If its use brought about mold and discoloration, then there was breach of this implied warranty and defendant is responsible for damage. Causal connection may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.

1950 E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. v. Universal Moulded Prods. Corp., 191 Va. 525, 62 S.E.2d 233.

Breach of warranty action (pre-UCC law). Under common law, when one contracts to supply article in which he deals, to be applied to particular purpose, so that buyer necessarily trusts judgment or skill of vendor, there is implied warranty that it shall be reasonably fit for purpose for which it is to be applied; and better rule is that this doctrine applies to dealers as well as to manufacturers and not to manufacturers alone.

1945 Greenland Corp. v. Allied, Inc., 184 Va. 588, 35 S.E.2d 801.

Where purchaser does designate specific article, but orders goods of particular quality or for particular purpose and that is known to seller, then purchaser is presumed to rely on judgment of seller. Implied warranty of fitness applies both to dealer and manufacturer. Where purchaser orders goods of particular quality and for particular purpose, and that purpose is made known to seller, then seller has impliedly warranted the product as fit for a particular purpose.

For more information on warranties see the pages on Wikipedia.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Warranties-Implied Warranty of Fitness

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    Contact Us For A Free Consultation