Cal. Codes » Civil Code / DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS / PART 4. OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS / TITLE 1.7. CONSUMER WARRANTIES / CHAPTER 1. Consumer Warranty Protection / ARTICLE 3. Sale Warranties
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1792 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Unless disclaimed in the manner prescribed by this chapter, every sale of consumer goods that are sold at retail in this state shall be accompanied by the manufacturer’s and the retail seller’s implied warranty that the goods are merchantable. The retail seller shall have a right of indemnity against the manufacturer in the amount of any liability under this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 151 cases (74 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig., 293 F. Supp. 3d 888 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig., 293 F. Supp. 3d 888 (N.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 4× “" Cal. Civ. Code § 1792 . The California Plaintiffs do not allege where they purchased their phones, and they seek to represent a class of persons in the state of California who purchased or own at least one Nexus 6P.”
Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores Cal., 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 699 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). · cites it 2× “8 ( Civ. Code, §§ 1792, 1791.1, subd. (a)(2) [definition of implied warranty of merchantability]; 1795.”
Heather Floyd v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 966 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “(on behalf of the national class or, alternatively, on behalf of the California subclass); (XI) breach of express warranty under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1 et seq.”
In re FCA US LLC Monostable Elec. Gearshift Litig., 280 F. Supp. 3d 975 (E.D. Mich. 2017). · cites it 2× “of merchantability with respect to consumer goods that are sold (Cal. Civ. Code, § 1792), unless the goods are sold with an express disclaimer stating they are sold ‘as is’, or ‘with all faults.”
Cholakyan v. Mercedes-benz USA, LLC, 796 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (C.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 2× “; and (4) breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Civil Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1 et seq.”
In re Seagate Tech. LLC Litig., 233 F. Supp. 3d 776 (N.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 2× “Code § 2314; Cal. Civ. Code § 1792 ; 810 Ill. Comp. Stat.”
McManus v. Fleetwood Enter., Inc., 320 F.3d 545 (5th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “Code §§ 1750-1784; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal Civ.Code § 1792; (4) negligent misrepresentation; and (5) fraudulent concealment.”
Keegan v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 838 F. Supp. 2d 929 (C.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 2× “Cal. Civ.Code § 1792; see also Music Acceptance Corp.”
Ehrlich v. BMW of North Am., LLC, 801 F. Supp. 2d 908 (C.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “; (3) violation of the UCL for acts other than violating the Secret Warranty Law; and (4) breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ.Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1 et seq. For the first cause of action, Plaintiff claims that, under the CLRA, the…”
Asghari v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 42 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (C.D. Cal. 2013). · cites it 2× “On their own behalf and on behalf of the Implied Warranty subclass, plaintiffs plead a claim for breach of implied warranty against all defendants under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Civil Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1 et seq.”
Montich v. Miele USA, Inc., 849 F. Supp. 2d 439 (D.N.J. 2012). · cites it 2× “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1792. The Act is intended to protect buyers of “consumer goods” purchased in California and defines “consumer goods” as “any new product or part thereof that is used, bought, or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, except for…”
Mui Ho v. Toyota Motor Corp., 931 F. Supp. 2d 987 (N.D. Cal. 2013). · cites it 2× “; (3) violation of the UCL on grounds other than violation of California’s Secret Warranty Law; (4) fraud by omission; (5) breach of implied warranty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ.Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1 et seq.; and (6) breach of express warranty…”
Show all 151 citing cases →
— Cal. Civil Code § 1792(A)(3) — 1 case
Fisher v. Ford Motor Co. (S.D. Cal. 2022).
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.