Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 7-2-315 (2026)
Implied Warranty: Fitness for Particular Purpose.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under Section 7-2-316 an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.
(Acts 1965, No. 549, p. 811.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Skelton v. Druid City Hosp. Bd., 459 So. 2d 818 (Ala. 1984).
Skelton v. Druid City Hosp. Bd., 459 So. 2d 818 (Ala. 1984). “It relies mainly on the language of § 7-2-315, Code 1975, which provides as follows: "Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select…”
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “Ala. Code § 7-2-315 ; Cal. Com. Code § 2315 ; Colo.”
Chase v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, 140 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (M.D. Ala. 2001). “Code § 7-2-315 (1997). Plaintiffs allege violation of both implied warranties.”
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)…”
Thomas v. Henderson, 297 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (S.D. Ala. 2003). “” Ala. Code § 7-2-315 . On its face, however, the Second Amended Complaint alleges both that (a) Henderson knew the particular purpose for which Thomas was seeking to purchase the Aircraft, and (b) Thomas relied on Henderson’s representations regarding the suitability of the…”
Sparks v. Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc., 27 So. 3d 489 (Ala. 2009). “Code 1975, stating as "[c]hanges" that § 15(2) of the Uniform Sales Act was "[c]ompletely rewritten"; and the Official Comment to § 7-2-315, Ala.Code 1975, stating that §§ 15(1), (4), and (5) of the Uniform Sales Act had been "[r]ewritten.”
Ex Parte Gen. Motors Corp., 769 So. 2d 903 (Ala. 1999). “Section 7-2-315, Ala.Code 1975, provides: "Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless…”
Montgomery Rubber & Gasket Co., Inc. v. Belmont Mach. Co., Inc., 308 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (M.D. Ala. 2004). “” 1975 Ala.Code § 7-2-315. This provision is intended to cover the sale of goods where the buyer relies on the seller’s expertise to provide appropriate goods.”
Johnson v. Anderson Ford, Inc., 686 So. 2d 224 (Ala. 1996). “Johnson was to pay $500 to Anderson. However, as we understand the evidence, Anderson, as an accommodation to Ford and Johnson, was to act only as an intermediary through which Johnson could acquire the rebuilt engine from Ford.”
Crum v. Johns Manville, Inc., 19 So. 3d 208 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Code 1975, provides for an implied warranty that goods sold under a contract shall be merchantable, § 7-2-814, and that they will be fit for the particular purpose for which they are to be used by the buyer, if the seller has reason to know of that purpose and the buyer relied…”
Rose v. Gen. Motors Corp., 323 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (N.D. Ala. 2004). “In her complaint the plaintiff alleges GM impliedly and/or expressly warranted that the subject Cavalier was fit for its intended use as a passenger vehicle on the public roadways pursuant to Code of Alabama, 1975, § 7-2-315; and further impliedly warranted that said product was…”
Wellcraft Marine v. Zarzour, 577 So. 2d 414 (Ala. 1990). “Further, § 7-2-314 (the implied warranty of merchantability section) and § 7-2-315 (the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose section) both apply to the "seller.”
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.