Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-314 (2026)
Implied warranty — Merchantability — Usage of trade
- Unless excluded or modified (§ 4-2-316), 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.
-
Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as
- pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and
- in the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and
- are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and
- run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and
- are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require; and
- conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.
(3) Unless excluded or modified (§ 4-2-316), other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.
History. Acts 1961, No. 185, § 2-314; A.S.A. 1947, § 85-2-314.
Research References
Ark. L. Notes.
Copeland, The Implied Warranty of Habitability and the Use of the Uniform Commercial Code by Analogy, 1983 Ark. L. Notes 5.
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 Return of Caveat Venditor as the Law of Products Liability, 23 Ark. L. Rev. 355.
Legislative Note — Act 111 of 1973: An Act to Impose Liability for Injury and Damages Done in Certain Circumstances by Defective Products, 27 Ark. L. Rev. 562.
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.
The Personal Injury Action in Warranty — Has the Arkansas Strict Liability Statute Rendered It Obsolete? 28 Ark. L. Rev. 335.
Voucher to Products Liability: The Mechanics of U.C.C. § 2-607(5)(a), 29 Ark. L. Rev. 486.
Magnuson-Moss v. State Protective Consumer Legislation: The Validity of a Stricter State Standard of Warranty Protection, 30 Ark. L. Rev. 21.
Note, Liability of Builder-Vendor: Blagg v. Fred Hunt Co., 35 Ark. L. Rev. 654 (1982).
U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
Arkansas Law Survey, Roberts and Deere, Torts, 8 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 207.
Case Notes
Applicability.
Where plaintiff brought tort and contract claims against defendant for dissatisfaction with a horse, remedies prescribed in this chapter for a buyer against a seller of goods were inapplicable since the positions of plaintiff and defendant were not those of buyer and seller, and since the agreement was for personal services and not for a sale. Mason v. Jackson, 323 Ark. 252, 914 S.W.2d 728 (1996).
Seller of a heat induction coil that triggered a fire in the buyer's furnace was not entitled to summary judgment with respect to the buyer's suit for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of warranties because, given that the buyer did not accept the seller's offer and terms, the gap-filling provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provided for the implied warranty of merchantability and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose under this section and § 4-2-315. In addition, the UCC allowed for recovery of incidental and consequential damages under this section and § 4-2-715. Coorstek, Inc. v. Elec. Melting Servs. Co., No. 4:06CV001726 JMM, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6092 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 15, 2008).
Breach.
Recovery on the theory of breach of implied warranty was denied where goods were fit for the intended purpose. Flippo v. Mode O'Day Frock Shops, 248 Ark. 1, 449 S.W.2d 692 (1970).
No breach of implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for particular use established. Equipment Supply Co. v. Smith, 255 Ark. 678, 502 S.W.2d 467 (1973).
In recovery for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, the plaintiff must prove (1) that he has sustained damages; (2) that the product sold to him was not merchantable, i.e., fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used; (3) that this unmerchantable condition was a proximate cause of his damages; and (4) that he was a person whom the defendant might reasonably expect to use or be affected by the product. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Dillaha, 280 Ark. 477, 659 S.W.2d 756 (1983); Jackson v. Swift-Eckrich, 830 F. Supp. 486 (W.D. Ark. 1993).
No claim stated for breach of implied warranty of merchantability existed where there were no charges that the cigarettes were not properly labeled, or that the cigarettes smoked by the Fund's participants were of an inferior or atypical grade from those usually sold, or that they failed to live up to promises made on the container. A “generally defective” type of allegation was not adequate. Ark. Carpenters' Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 936 (E.D. Ark. 1999).
Fit for Ordinary Purposes.
Feed that made cows sick was not fit for its ordinary purpose, and the trial court correctly instructed on the issue of breach of warranty of merchantability. Purina Mills, Inc. v. Askins, 317 Ark. 58, 875 S.W.2d 843 (1994).
Fitness for Use.
Where assignee of lease of television broadcasting equipment relied on an express warranty from lessor that the equipment would be put in first class condition, the statement amounted to a warranty that the goods were fit for the intended use. KLPR TV, Inc. v. Visual Elec. Corp., 327 F. Supp. 315 (W.D. Ark. 1971), aff'd in part, reversed in part on other grounds, 465 F.2d 1382 (8th Cir. 1972).
Merger of Warranties.
Motions for a directed verdict on the implied warranty of merchantability issue under this section, and on the issue of an implied warranty for a particular purpose under § 4-2-315, were properly denied where the particular purpose for which buyer purchased the product coincided with its ordinary use and purpose, and as a consequence the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness merged. F.L. Davis Bldrs. Supply, Inc. v. Knapp, 42 Ark. App. 52, 853 S.W.2d 288 (1993).
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).
Warnings.
The plaintiff originally has the burden of proving the warnings or instructions provided on a product's label were inadequate; once a plaintiff proves the lack of an adequate warning or instruction, a presumption arises that the user would have read and heeded adequate warnings or instructions, rebuttable by evidence which persuades the trier of fact that an adequate warning or instruction would have been futile under the circumstances. Bushong v. Garman Co., 311 Ark. 228, 843 S.W.2d 807 (1992).
Cited: Bailey v. Ford Motor Co., 246 Ark. 950, 440 S.W.2d 238 (1969); Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093, 449 S.W.2d 922 (1970); Gramling v. Baltz, 253 Ark. 352, 485 S.W.2d 183 (1972); Hubbard v. Moore, 537 F. Supp. 126 (W.D. Ark. 1982); Brewer v. Jeep Corp., 724 F.2d 653 (8th Cir. 1983); Stalter v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 282 Ark. 443, 669 S.W.2d 460 (1984); Shaver v. Spann, 35 Ark. App. 118, 813 S.W.2d 280 (1991); Campbell Soup Co. v. Gates, 319 Ark. 54, 889 S.W.2d 750 (1994); Cartillar v. Turbine Conversions, Ltd., 187 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 1999).