Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 47
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2315 (2026)

Implied warranty: fitness for particular purpose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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 47-2316 an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1986–2007 · leading case: Pac. Am. Leasing Corp. v. S.P.E. Bldg. Sys., Inc., 730 P.2d 273 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pac. Am. Leasing Corp. v. S.P.E. Bldg. Sys., Inc., 730 P.2d 273 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 47-2315. Pacific American Leasing argues that warranty is the central issue in this case *102 and that all of Building Systems’ claims are warranty claims.”
Nomo Agroindustrial Sa De CV v. Enza Zaden North Am., Inc., 492 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Ariz. 2007). · cites it 8× “”)(emphasis added); A.R.S. § 47-2315 (implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose: “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…”
Barnes v. Sandoz Crop Prot. Corp., 938 P.2d 95 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “The third claim, based on A.R.S. § 47-2315, alleged that Sandoz breached the implied warranty for fitness because it “informed” the farm that Zorial would meet its “herbicide need.”
Haugland v. Winnebago Indus., 327 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (D. Ariz. 2004). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 47-2315. 11 .Id. § 47-2314. 12 .”
In Re Minnesota Breast Implant Litig., 36 F. Supp. 2d 863 (D. Minnesota 1998). “" Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 47-2315. Here again, 3M does not satisfy *875 the UCC's definition of "seller" under § 47-2103.”
Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Coop., 778 P.2d 1227 (Ariz. 1989). “Because Drew does not seek such damages, however, we need not resolve this apparent conflict between the two statutes of limitations.”
Taylor AG Indus. v. Pure-Gro, 54 F.3d 555 (9th Cir. 1995). “§ 47-2314 (1994) and the implied warranty for fitness for a particular purpose in Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 47-2315 (1994). The implied warranty of merchantability, which warrants that goods are “adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require,” is similar to…”
Tri-City Prop. Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Rsch. Prods. Corp., 721 P.2d 144 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “It is undisputed that Chesin was never informed exactly how Doyle intended to use the herbicide.”
Felker v. McGhan Med. Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 863 (D. Minnesota 1998). “” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 47-2315. Here again, 3M does not satisfy *875 the UCC’s definition of “seller” under § 47-2103.”
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.