Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-313 (2026)
Express warranties by affirmation, promise, description, sample
-
Express warranties by the seller are created as follows:
- Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise.
- Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description.
- Any sample or model which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the whole of the goods shall conform to the sample or model.
(2) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as “warrant” or “guarantee” or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty.
History. Acts 1961, No. 185, § 2-313; A.S.A. 1947, § 85-2-313.
Research References
ALR.
Statement in Advertisements, Product Brochures or Other Promotional Materials as Constituting “Affirmation of Fact” Giving Rise to Express Warranty Under UCC § 2-313(1)(a). 83 A.L.R.6th 1.
Statement in Product Packaging, User Manuals, or Other Product Documentation as Constituting “Affirmation of Fact” Giving Rise to Express Warranty Under UCC § 2-313(1)(a). 84 A.L.R.6th 1.
Oral Statement as Constituting “Affirmation of Fact” Giving Rise to Express Warranty Under UCC § 2-313(1)(a). 88 A.L.R.6th 1.
Ark. L. Notes.
Looney, The Toothless Cow, the Little Bull That Couldn't, and Udder Matters: Livestock Warranties and the Uniform Commercial Code, 1990 Ark. L. Notes 75.
Ark. L. Rev.
The Legal Kaleidoscope — Products Liability, 21 Ark. L. Rev. 301.
For Whom the Bell Tolls — An Interpretation of the UCC's Exception as to Accrual of a Cause of Action for Future Performance Warranties, 28 Ark. L. Rev. 312.
Magnuson-Moss vs. State Protective Consumer Legislation: The Validity of a Stricter State Standard of Warranty Protection, 30 Ark. L. Rev. 21.
Case Notes
Advertisements.
Where defendant's literature stated that two-plies of its roofing material were equivalent to four-plies of conventional material, that buyers could be “assured of greater quality, weather protection and long life,” and that it was “bonded for up to 20 years” it could not be said as a matter of law that no express warranty had been made. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Celotex Corp., 264 Ark. 757, 574 S.W.2d 669 (1978).
Affirmations of Fact.
An affirmation of fact must be part of the basis of the parties' bargain to be an express warranty, so that when a buyer is not influenced by the statement in making his or her purchase, the statement is not a basis of the bargain. Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alter, 309 Ark. 426, 834 S.W.2d 136 (1992).
The evidence before the trial court supported the conclusion that statements by the defendant's agents that the defendant's herbicide was safe and would not injure a corn crop were affirmations of fact and not mere opinions, commendations, or “sales puffing”, and constituted specific express warranties that the goods would conform to the affirmations. Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alter, 309 Ark. 426, 834 S.W.2d 136 (1992).
Circuit court's conclusion that an employee's statements that a tractor would have approximately 500-550 hours on it created an express warranty was not error where the farmer made clear that he was only interested in tractors with low hours, the employee knew of the farmer's desire to purchase a low-hour tractor, and the farmer placed a deposit on the tractor based on the representations. Greenway Equip., Inc. v. Johnson, 2020 Ark. App. 336 (2020).
Information Required by Law.
Where state law requires a certificate on cotton seed sold for planting which will show the true percentage of germination, such certificate constitutes an express warranty as to the germination percentage stated. Walcott & Steele, Inc. v. Carpenter, 246 Ark. 95, 436 S.W.2d 820 (1969).
Waiver.
Buyer's exercise of ownership over car following an initial attempt to return it did not constitute a waiver of breach of warranty claims where seller refused to allow revocation. Currier v. Spencer, 299 Ark. 182, 772 S.W.2d 309 (1989).
Cited: Pearrow v. Huntsman, 248 Ark. 1146, 455 S.W.2d 128 (1970); Wilson v. Marquette Elecs., Inc., 630 F.2d 575 (8th Cir. 1980); DeLuryea v. Winthrop Lab., Div. of Sterling Drug, Inc., 697 F.2d 222 (8th Cir. 1983); Watson v. Miears, 772 F.2d 433 (8th Cir. 1985); Shaver v. Spann, 35 Ark. App. 118, 813 S.W.2d 280 (1991).