CACI No. 3212. Duration of Implied Warranty

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2017 edition)

Download PDF
3212.Duration of Implied Warranty
An implied warranty is in effect for one year after the sale of the
[consumer good], unless a shorter period is stated in a writing that
comes with the [consumer good], provided that the shorter period is
reasonable. In no event will an implied warranty be in effect for less
than 60 days.
[The time period of an implied warranty is lengthened by the number
of days that the [consumer good] was made available by [name of
plaintiff] for repairs under the warranty, including any delays caused by
circumstances beyond [name of plaintiff]’s control].
New September 2003
Directions for Use
If the consumer goods at issue are not new, the instruction must be modified to
reflect the shorter implied warranty period provided in Civil Code section 1795.5(c)
(i.e., no less than 30 days but no more than three months).
Sources and Authority
• Duration of Implied Warranties. Civil Code section 1791.1(c).
Tolling of Warranty Period for Nonconforming Goods. Civil Code section
• Distributor or Seller of Used Consumer Goods. Civil Code section 1795.5.
• “On appeal, [defendants] concede that the duration provision is not a statute of
limitations and that the applicable statute of limitations is four years. They
argue, however, that the judgment can be affirmed on other grounds. Among
other arguments, they contend that the duration provision of the Song-Beverly
Act should be interpreted as barring an action for breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability when the purchaser fails to discover and report the
defect to the seller within the time period specified in that provision. We reject
this argument because the plain language of the statute, particularly in light of
the consumer protection policies supporting the Song-Beverly Act, make clear
that the statute merely creates a limited, prospective duration for the implied
warranty of merchantability; it does not create a deadline for discovering latent
defects or for giving notice to the seller.” (Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc.
(2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1301 [95 Cal.Rptr.3d 285].)
Secondary Sources
4 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Sales, § 325
1California UCC Sales & Leases (Cont.Ed.Bar) Warranties, § 3.17
44 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 502, Sales: Warranties,
§§ 502.51–502.52 (Matthew Bender)
20 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 206, Sales, § 206.117 (Matthew Bender)
5 California Civil Practice: Business Litigation § 53:7 (Thomson Reuters)
3213–3219. Reserved for Future Use

© Judicial Council of California.