Tort Law

Warranties-Miscellaneous

Fairfax Injury Lawyer Brien Roche Addresses Warranties-Miscellaneous Cases

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-Miscellaneous.  

Warranties-Miscellaneous-Statutes

 

See Va. Code § 8.01-28. In any action on contract, expressed or implied, for payment of money, if plaintiff files affidavit with pleadings and this affidavit not controverted, then plaintiff entitled to judgment on affidavit.


See Va. Code § 8.2-317 (UCC) for rules of interpretation as to conflicting warranties.

Warranties-Miscellaneous-Cases

1999 Yates v. Pitman Mfg., Inc., 257 Va. 601, 514 S.E.2d 605.

Plaintiff in this case was not purchaser of product. Issue was whether notice of breach of warranty to products manufacturer must be given as prerequisite to recover for breach of warranty. Plaintiff was injured when outrigger on crane unit crushed his left foot. Va. Code § 8.2-607(3) provides where tender has been accepted, buyer must, within reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach, notify seller of breach or claim is barred. Plaintiff in this case was not buyer and as such, notice requirement does not preclude Yates from maintaining breach of warranty action. In regards to express warranty claim, plaintiff claimed that it had been certified at time of sale that crane unit met applicable design and construction standards of particular ANSI standard. Plaintiff presented evidence that standard was not complied with. This properly set forth claim under express warranty statute found in Va. Code § 8.2-313. Plaintiff need not show that he relied upon affirmation in order to recover under express warranty theory.

1990 Luddeke v. Amana Refrig., 239 Va. 203, 387 S.E.2d 502.

Breach of warranty case. Remedy available to buyer for breach of warranty is revocation of acceptance. Revocation must occur within reasonable time after buyer discovers or should have discovered grounds for it. Revocation is not effective until buyer notifies seller of it. In this case, notice came with filing of suit nearly five years after plaintiff had notice. Revocation of acceptance was timebarred.

1981 W.J. Rapp Co. v. Whitlock Equip. Corp., 222 Va. 80, 279 S.E.2d 133.

If breach of warranty occurred in this case, then it occurred when machine was delivered to consumer.

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

Whole law of implied warranty is based on implied representations rather than on promises.

For more information on warranties see the pages on Wikipedia.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Warranties-Miscellaneous

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Contact Us For A Free Consultation