California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

1231. Implied Warranty of Merchantability - Essential Factual Elements

Download PDF
1231.Implied Warranty of Merchantability—Essential Factual
Elements
[Name of plaintiff] [also] claims that [he/she/it] was harmed by the
[product] that [he/she/it] bought from [name of defendant] because the
[product] did not have the quality that a buyer would expect. To
establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of plaintiff] bought the [product] from [name of
defendant];
2. That, at the time of purchase, [name of defendant] was in the
business of selling these goods [or by [his/her/its] occupation held
[himself/herself/itself] out as having special knowledge or skill
regarding these goods];
3. That the [product] [insert one or more of the following:]
3. [was not of the same quality as those generally acceptable in the
trade;]
3. [was not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are
used;]
3. [did not conform to the quality established by the parties’ prior
dealings or by usage of trade;]
3. [other ground as set forth in California Uniform Commercial Code
section 2314(2);]
4. [That [name of plaintiff] took reasonable steps to notify [name of
defendant] within a reasonable time that the [product] did not
have the expected quality;]
5. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
6. That the failure of the [product] to have the expected quality was
a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.
New September 2003
Directions for Use
This cause of action could also apply to products that are leased. If so, modify the
instruction accordingly.
The giving of notice to the seller is not required in personal injury or property
damage lawsuits against a manufacturer or another supplier with whom the plaintiff
has not directly dealt. (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d
57, 61 [27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897]; Gherna v. Ford Motor Co. (1966) 246
716
0050
Cal.App.2d 639, 652–653 [55 Cal.Rptr. 94].)
If an instruction on the giving of notice to the seller is needed, see CACI
No. 1243, Notification/Reasonable Time.
Sources and Authority
• Implied Warranty of Merchantability. California Uniform Commercial Code
section 2314.
• Customary Dealings of Parties. California Uniform Commercial Code section
1303.
• “Merchant” Defined. California Uniform Commercial Code section 2104(1).
• “Goods” Defined. California Uniform Commercial Code section 2105(1).
• “A warranty is a contractual term concerning some aspect of the sale, such as
title to the goods, or their quality or quantity.” (4 Witkin, Summary of
California Law (10th ed. 2005) Sales, § 51.)
• “Unlike express warranties, which are basically contractual in nature, the
implied warranty of merchantability arises by operation of law. It does not
‘impose a general requirement that goods precisely fulfill the expectation of the
buyer. Instead, it provides for a minimum level of quality.’ ” (American Suzuki
Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1295–1296 [44
Cal.Rptr.2d 526], internal citations omitted.)
• “[I]n cases involving personal injuries resulting from defective products, the
theory of strict liability in tort has virtually superseded the concept of implied
warranties.” (Grinnell v. Charles Pfizer & Co. (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 424, 432
[79 Cal.Rptr. 369].)
• “Vertical privity is a prerequisite in California for recovery on a theory of
breach of the implied warranties of fitness and merchantability.” (United States
Roofing, Inc. v. Credit Alliance Corp. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1431, 1441 [279
Cal.Rptr. 533], internal citations omitted.)
• Although privity appears to be required for actions based upon the implied
warranty of merchantability, there are exceptions to this rule, such as one for
members of the purchaser’s family. (Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104,
115, fn. 8 [120 Cal.Rptr. 681, 534 P.2d 377].) Vertical privity is also waived for
employees. (Peterson v. Lamb Rubber Co. (1960) 54 Cal.2d 339 [5 Cal.Rptr.
863, 353 P.2d 575].) A plaintiff satisfies the privity requirement when he or she
leases or negotiates the sale or lease of the product. (United States Roofing,
Inc., supra.)
Secondary Sources
4 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Sales, § 51
California Products Liability Actions, Ch. 2, Liability for Defective Products,
§§ 2.31–2.33, Ch. 7, Proof, § 7.03 (Matthew Bender)
44 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 502, Sales: Warranties,
PRODUCTS LIABILITY CACI No. 1231
717
0051
§§ 502.24, 502.51, 502.200–502.214 (Matthew Bender)
20 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 206, Sales, § 206.63 et seq. (Matthew
Bender)
CACI No. 1231 PRODUCTS LIABILITY
718
0052