(1) Subject to subsection (2) there is in a contract for sale a warranty by the seller that:
(a) The title conveyed shall be good, and its transfer rightful; and
(b) The goods shall be delivered free from any security interest or other lien or encumbrance of which the buyer at the time of contracting has no knowledge.
(2) A warranty under subsection (1) will be excluded or modified only by specific language or by circumstances which give the buyer reason to know that the person selling does not claim title in himself or that he is purporting to sell only such right or title as he or a third person may have.
(3) Unless otherwise agreed a seller who is a merchant regularly dealing in goods of the kind warrants that the goods shall be delivered free of the rightful claim of any third person by way of infringement or the like, but a buyer who furnishes specifications to the seller must hold the seller harmless against any such claim which arises out of compliance with the specifications.
(Acts 1965, No. 549, p. 811.)
Notes of Decisions
Simmons MacH. Co. Inc. v. M. & M Brokerage, Inc., 409 So. 2d 743 (Ala. 1981).
· cites it 3× “Simmons filed a counterclaim against M & M for breach of warranty of title under Code 1975, § 7-2-312. At the close of evidence, the trial court granted M & M's motion for a directed verdict in its favor on Simmons's counterclaim.”
Alabama Powersport Auction, LLC v. Wiese, 143 So. 3d 713 (Ala. 2013).
· cites it 3× “Code 1975, for a breach of the warranty of title if the auctioneer fails to disclose to the buyer the identity of the principal: “It has been held in Alabama that an auctioneer, in selling property for another, is the agent of the seller, and that if the auctioneer acts on…”
Steele v. Cofer, 612 So. 2d 1220 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Steele further states that Cofer’s claim that Steele did not furnish him with good title to the van as required by § 7-2-312, Ala.Code 1975, is precluded because, he claims, Cofer had actual knowledge from the title document that the lien had not been satisfied.”
— Ala. Code § 7-2-312(2) — 1 case
Steele v. Cofer, 612 So. 2d 1220 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992).
“Steele further states that Cofer’s claim that Steele did not furnish him with good title to the van as required by § 7-2-312, Ala.Code 1975, is precluded because, he claims, Cofer had actual knowledge from the title document that the lien had not been satisfied.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.