Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 7-2-314 (2026)
Implied Warranty: Merchantability; Usage of Trade; Human Blood and Tissues.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(1) Unless excluded or modified (Section 7-2-316), 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.
(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as:
(a) Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and
(b) In the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and
(c) Are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and
(d) Run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and
(e) Are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require; and
(f) Conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.
(3) Unless excluded or modified (Section 7-2-316) other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.
(4) Procuring, furnishing, donating, processing, distributing, or using human whole blood, plasma, blood products, blood derivatives, and other human tissues such as corneas, bones or organs for the purpose of injecting, transfusing, or transplanting any of them in the human body is declared for all purposes to be the rendition of a service by every person participating therein and whether any remuneration is paid therefor is declared not to be a sale of such whole blood, plasma, blood products, blood derivatives, or other human tissues.
(Acts 1965, No. 549, p. 811; Acts 1969, No. 743, p. 1321.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 872 So. 2d 101 (Ala. 2003).
Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 872 So. 2d 101 (Ala. 2003). “Ala.Code 1975, § 7-2-314. These two standards `go hand-in-hand,' at least as applied to food products, `for it is apparent that a food product is defective or unreasonably dangerous if it is unmerchantable or unfit for human consumption.”
Am. Nat. Red Cross v. Asd Spec. Healthcare, 888 So. 2d 464 (Ala. 2004). “[1] The full quote from Wilson stated: "When drafting § 7-2-314, our legislature specifically used the language `for all purposes.”
Sparks v. Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc., 27 So. 3d 489 (Ala. 2009). “Ala.Code 1975, § 7-2-314. These two standards `go hand-in-hand,' at least as applied to food products, `for it is apparent that a food product is defective or unreasonably dangerous if it is unmerchantable or unfit for human consumption.”
Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 363 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2000). “STATE LAW Alabama Code § 7-2-314, which governs the implied warranty of merchantability, provides that “[u]nless excluded or modified ([by] Section 7-2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with…”
Reid v. Unilever United States, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 893 (N.D. Ill. 2013). “38, Def.’s Reply at 7.) Under the UCC, as adopted by both Illinois and Alabama, “a warranty that 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.”
Alabama Powersport Auction, LLC v. Wiese, 143 So. 3d 713 (Ala. 2013). “” 1 Wiese also alleged that APA “impliedly warranted that said product was fit for its intended use as a recreational ‘Fun-Kart’ off-road vehicle, pursuant to the Code of Alabama, 1975, § 7-2-315; and further impliedly warranted that said product was merchantable pursuant to the…”
Ex Parte Gen. Motors Corp., 769 So. 2d 903 (Ala. 1999). “Thus, § 7-2-314's requirement that the seller be a "merchant with respect to goods of that kind" is met, and the record shows that Tucker has presented substantial evidence of the existence of the implied warranty.”
Chase v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, 140 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (M.D. Ala. 2001). “Code § 7-2-314 (1997). An implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose arises when the seller, at the time of contracting, has reason to know any particular purpose to which the buyer wishes to put the product, and also knows that the buyer is relying on the seller’s…”
Ex Parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc., 431 So. 2d 975 (Ala. 1983). “The issue concerns the interpretation to be given Ala.Code 1975, § 7-2-314, which provides in part: "(1) Unless excluded or modified (section 7-2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with…”
Montgomery Rubber & Gasket Co., Inc. v. Belmont Mach. Co., Inc., 308 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (M.D. Ala. 2004). “” 1975 Ala.Code § 7-2-314. Comment 3 explains that used goods, such as the boring mill in question, are still covered by an implied warranty: “A specific designation of goods by the buyer does not exclude the seller’s obligation that they be fit for the general purposes…”
Ex Parte Isbell, 708 So. 2d 571 (Ala. 1997). “" The Isbells' complaint contained the following nine counts against Southern: (I) breach of warranty to repair defects; (II) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (III) breach of contract; (IV) "Negligent or Wanton Construction, Inspection and/or Repair"; (V)…”
Boyd v. Homes of Legend, Inc., 981 F. Supp. 1423 (M.D. Ala. 1997). “See 1975 Ala.Code §§ 7-2-314, -315. 11 . As explained more fully below, this disparate treatment of written and non-written warranties, with the increased regulatory bite placed on the former, is consistent with Congress’s overall aim in the Act to protect consumers from unfair…”
— Ala. Code § 7-2-314(1) — 20 cases
Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 872 So. 2d 101 (Ala. 2003). “Ala.Code 1975, § 7-2-314. These two standards `go hand-in-hand,' at least as applied to food products, `for it is apparent that a food product is defective or unreasonably dangerous if it is unmerchantable or unfit for human consumption.”
Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 363 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2000). “STATE LAW Alabama Code § 7-2-314, which governs the implied warranty of merchantability, provides that “[u]nless excluded or modified ([by] Section 7-2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with…”
Am. Nat. Red Cross v. Asd Spec. Healthcare, 888 So. 2d 464 (Ala. 2004). “[1] The full quote from Wilson stated: "When drafting § 7-2-314, our legislature specifically used the language `for all purposes.”
Ex Parte Gen. Motors Corp., 769 So. 2d 903 (Ala. 1999). “Thus, § 7-2-314's requirement that the seller be a "merchant with respect to goods of that kind" is met, and the record shows that Tucker has presented substantial evidence of the existence of the implied warranty.”
Reid v. Unilever United States, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 893 (N.D. Ill. 2013). “38, Def.’s Reply at 7.) Under the UCC, as adopted by both Illinois and Alabama, “a warranty that 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.”
— Ala. Code § 7-2-314(2) — 4 cases
Jerry Bodie v. Purdue Pharma Co., 236 F. App'x 511 (11th Cir. 2007).
Ballard v. Gen. Motors LLC (M.D. Ala. 2021).
Ahmed v. Johnson & Johnson Health Care Sys., Inc. (S.D. Ala. 2024).
Jerry Bodie v. Purdue Pharma Co. (11th Cir. 2007).
— Ala. Code § 7-2-314(2)(c) — 7 cases
Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 872 So. 2d 101 (Ala. 2003). “Ala.Code 1975, § 7-2-314. These two standards `go hand-in-hand,' at least as applied to food products, `for it is apparent that a food product is defective or unreasonably dangerous if it is unmerchantable or unfit for human consumption.”
Morris Concrete, Inc. v. Warrick, 868 So. 2d 429 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003).
White v. Microsoft Corp., 454 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (S.D. Ala. 2006).
Barko Hydraulics, LLC v. Michael Shepherd, 167 So. 3d 304 (Ala. 2014).
Houston v. Bayer Healthcare Pharm., Inc., 16 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (N.D. Ala. 2014).
— Ala. Code § 7-2-314(4) — 5 cases
Am. Nat. Red Cross v. Asd Spec. Healthcare, 888 So. 2d 464 (Ala. 2004). “[1] The full quote from Wilson stated: "When drafting § 7-2-314, our legislature specifically used the language `for all purposes.”
Weishorn v. Miles-Cutter, 721 A.2d 811 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998).
Ex Parte Partners in Care, Inc., 986 So. 2d 1145 (Ala. 2007).
Am. Nat'l Red Cross v. ASD Specialty Health Care, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Ala. 2002).
Am. Nat'l Red Cross v. ASD Specialty Health Care, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (S.D. Ala. 2002).
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.