2005 Connecticut Code - Sec. 42a-2-314. Implied warranty: merchantability; usage of trade.
Sec. 42a-2-314. Implied warranty: merchantability; usage of trade. (1) Unless
excluded or modified as provided by section 42a-2-316, a warranty that the goods shall
be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with
respect to goods of that kind. Under this section the serving for value of food or drink
to be consumed either on the premises or elsewhere is a sale.
(3) Unless excluded or modified as provided by section 42a-2-316 other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.
(1959, P.A. 133, S. 2-314.)
Annotations to former statutes:
(1958 Rev., S. 42-12): If vendee is sued in action involving title to goods and notifies and requests vendor to defend, latter is conclusively bound by the judgment. 113 C. 542. Vendee may sue vendor before final outcome of replevin action brought by another against vendee, but has burden of proving other's title superior to vendor's. 118 C. 476.
(1958 Rev., S. 42-14): No implied warranty as to food furnished by restaurant or hotel. 88 C. 314; 117 C. 131. Cited. 100 C. 402. A known broker's knowledge of purpose for which goods are purchased cannot raise an implied warranty if his authority was limited to making sales. 101 C. 276. Cited. 112 C. 187. As between dealer and buyer-consumer of food sold for immediate consumption there is an implied warranty of fitness to be eaten, including freedom from foreign substances; applies to food in sealed can. 115 C. 258. Liability in negligence of company selling under its brands. Id., 264. Effect of delay in use of food after receipt. 117 C. 512. Cited. Id., 688. Implied warranty generally limited to parties and privies to contract. 125 C. 92. Furnishing of defective bottle of ale which exploded was a breach of warranty of merchantable quality by brewer. 127 C. 44. Injury from eating macaroni full of bugs; expert testimony not essential; measure of damages. Id., 227. Cited. 132 C. 439. No implied warranty as to food furnished by restaurant. 135 C. 243. Cited. 137 C. 251; 139 C. 65. Requirements necessary to establish breach of warranty of merchantability. 147 C. 460. Seller held to stricter rule when product is for human use. Id. Cited. 148 C. 716. To establish breach of implied warranty of fitness, plaintiff must show both that the product contains a substance or ingredient which has a tendency to affect injuriously an appreciable number of people and that he has in fact been harmed or injured by its use. 153 C. 137. Proof that all permanent waving lotions generally contain basic chemicals which are of varying strengths in different brands and that, in the strength used in some brands, the chemicals may injuriously affect some people, is not alone a reasonable basis for a conclusion that any specific lotion, even though it contains the same basic chemicals, is not "reasonably fit" or of "merchantable quality". Id., 139, 140. Cited. 158 C. 458.
The contract between the housewife purchasing a pie and the seller is sufficiently broad to include and cover any reasonable use; thus there is privity of contract with the consumer though he is not the purchaser. 4 CS 276; 5 CS 499. Subsection (4) cited. 5 CS 499. Purchasing from vending machine. 8 CS 34. Recovery allowed to purchaser in self-service store who made her own selection of branded article. 10 CS 9; 15 CS 174. Implied warranty of wholesomeness and fitness did not exist between dealer and buyer-consumer where plaintiff had not eaten the unfit food. 16 CS 404. Where plaintiff was familiar with brand but asked for no special kind, implied warranty attached. 18 CS 313. No implied seller's warranty to one who is neither the buyer of the product nor a member of the buyer's household; neither is there contract express or implied with the manufacturer. 19 CS 188. Plaintiff who was injured by fall against windshield could not recover from seller without alleging that the particular windshield was more dangerous than ordinary ones even though the buyer of the car had an express warranty with seller for a special safety windshield. Id., 479. Cited. Id., 503. Former section 42-16 cited. 22 CS 211.
Annotations to present section:
Cited. 176 C. 245, 253. Cited. 181 C. 62, 63. Cited. 182 C. 561, 565. Cited. 184 C. 10, 19; Id., 607, 616. Cited. 191 C. 150, 164. Cited. 216 C. 65, 83.
Cited. 1 CA 690, 691. Cited. 2 CA 308, 311. Cited. 27 CA 688, 695; Id., 810, 817. Cited. 33 CA 575, 588.
Cited. 37 CS 735, 740. Cited. 42 CS 153, 154, 156.
Cited. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 344, 345. When salesman for defendant car dealer several times informed plaintiff car was sold "as is" and "no guarantee" was stamped on sales contract and receipt given plaintiff, there was no implied warranty of fitness in sale of the car. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 685.
Cited. 203 C. 342, 352.
Where defendant restaurateur, sued by plaintiff customer who consumed defective clams, impleaded third party defendant as supplier, statute of limitations barred third party action and demurrer to third party complaint was sustained. 28 CS 385. To establish breach of implied warranty or merchantability under this section, it must be proven that the "goods" were not merchantable at time of sale. 33 CS 108, 115, 116.
Cited. 176 C. 245, 255. (c) cited. 176 C. 245, 254. Cited. 203 C. 342, 353.
(c) cited. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 482.
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Connecticut may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.