Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-315 (2026)

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.

Torts — Strict Liability in Products Cases, 22 Ark. L. Rev. 796.

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.

Voucher to Products Liability: The Mechanics of U.C.C. § 2-607(5)(a), 29 Ark. L. Rev. 486.

Magnuson-Moss vs. 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.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Tyler, Survey of Business Law, 3 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 149.

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 § 4-2-314 and this section. In addition, the UCC allowed for recovery of incidental and consequential damages under § 4-2-714 and this section. Coorstek, Inc. v. Elec. Melting Servs. Co., No. 4:06CV001726 JMM, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6092 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 15, 2008).

Breach.

Evidence insufficient to establish breach of warranty. Delta Oxygen Co. v. Scott, 238 Ark. 534, 383 S.W.2d 885 (1964); Equipment Supply Co. v. Smith, 255 Ark. 678, 502 S.W.2d 467 (1973).

To recover for breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, the plaintiff must prove (1) that he has sustained damages; (2) that at the time of contracting, the defendant had reason to know the particular purpose for which the product was required; (3) that defendant knew the buyer was relying on defendant's skill or judgment to select or furnish the product; (4) that the product was not fit for the purpose for which it was required; (5) that this unfitness was a proximate cause of plaintiff's damages; and (6) that plaintiff was a person whom defendant would reasonably have expected to use the product. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Dillaha, 280 Ark. 477, 659 S.W.2d 756 (1983).

Creation of Warranty.

Implied warranty of fitness held established. Little Rock Land Co. v. Raper, 245 Ark. 641, 433 S.W.2d 836 (1968); DeLemar Motor Co. v. White, 249 Ark. 708, 460 S.W.2d 802 (1970); Lewis v. Mobil Oil Corp., 438 F.2d 500 (8th Cir. 1971); Wilson v. Marquette Elecs., Inc., 630 F.2d 575 (8th Cir. 1980).

Cross Complaint.

Since there was an implied warranty of fitness from the installer of a passenger elevator to the owner of the building the owner could bring the installer into an action by an injured passenger against such owner by a cross complaint alleging breach of warranty. Little Rock Land Co. v. Raper, 245 Ark. 641, 433 S.W.2d 836 (1968).

Exclusions, Modifications, Etc.

Exclusions or modifications of the implied warranty of fitness are not effective unless they are conspicuous. Mack Trucks of Ark., Inc. v. Jet Asphalt & Rock Co., 246 Ark. 101, 437 S.W.2d 459 (1969), overruled in part on other grounds, Cavette v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 260 Ark. 874, 545 S.W.2d 612 (1977).

An attempted limitation or modification of an implied warranty long after the contract of purchase was signed was ineffective as amounting to a unilateral attempt of one party to limit its obligations. Mack Trucks of Ark., Inc. v. Jet Asphalt & Rock Co., 246 Ark. 101, 437 S.W.2d 459 (1969), overruled in part on other grounds, Cavette v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 260 Ark. 874, 545 S.W.2d 612 (1977).

Disclaimer attempting to exclude or modify implied warranties was ineffective as a matter of law where it was in the body of the instrument and in the same size and color of type as other provisions. Mack Trucks of Ark., Inc. v. Jet Asphalt & Rock Co., 246 Ark. 101, 437 S.W.2d 459 (1969), overruled in part on other grounds, Cavette v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 260 Ark. 874, 545 S.W.2d 612 (1977).

Knowledge of Purpose.

It is enough if the supplier is aware of the particular purpose a buyer has in mind and permits the buyer to make the purchase on the assumption that the goods are suitable for his needs; it is enough that under all the circumstances the supplier has reason to realize the purpose intended or that the reliance exists. Berkeley Pump Co. v. Reed-Joseph Land Co., 279 Ark. 384, 653 S.W.2d 128 (1983).

Plaintiffs' claim for a breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose failed where it made no allegation of any particular purpose for which it (or its participants) bought cigarettes, and no allegation that the Fund or its participants ever told the defendants of any such need. Ark. Carpenters' Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 936 (E.D. Ark. 1999).

Lack of Privity.

Section 4-86-101 eliminated lack of privity as a defense in an action against the manufacturer or seller of goods for breach of warranty if the plaintiff was a person whom the manufacturer or seller might reasonably have expected to use, consume or be affected by the goods. Mack Trucks of Ark., Inc. v. Jet Asphalt & Rock Co., 246 Ark. 101, 437 S.W.2d 459 (1969), overruled in part on other grounds, Cavette v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 260 Ark. 874, 545 S.W.2d 612 (1977).

Merger of Warranties.

Motions for a directed verdict on the implied warranty of merchantability issue under § 4-2-314, and on the issue of an implied warranty for a particular purpose under this section, 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).

Proof of Damages.

Whether breach of warranty of fitness in failing to provide proper product caused damage is a question of fact for jury. Lewis v. Mobil Oil Corp., 438 F.2d 500 (8th Cir. 1971).

Cited: Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093, 449 S.W.2d 922 (1970); Stalter v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 282 Ark. 443, 669 S.W.2d 460 (1984); 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).