(1)Subject to subdivision (2) there is in a contract for sale a warranty by the seller that
(a)The title conveyed shall be good, and its transfer rightful; and
(b)The goods shall be delivered free from any security interest or other lien or encumbrance of which the buyer at the time of contracting has no knowledge.
(2)A warranty under subdivision (1) will be excluded or modified only by specific language or by circumstances which give the buyer reason to know that the person selling does not claim title in himself or that he is purporting to sell only such right or title as he or a third person may have.
(3)Unless otherwise agreed a seller who is a merchant regularly dealing in goods of the kind warrants that the goods shall be delivered free of the rightful claim of any third person by way of infringement or the like but a buyer who furnishes
specifications to the seller must hold the seller harmless against any such claim which arises out of compliance with the specifications.
Notes of Decisions
Augustine v. Talking Rain Beverage Co., 386 F. Supp. 3d 1317 (S.D. Cal. 2019).
“" CAL. COM. CODE § 2312(1)(b). *1332 "Statements made by a manufacturer through its advertising efforts can be construed as warranty statements.”
Sony Comput. Ent. Am. Inc. v. GameMasters, 87 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
“Though not at issue in the pending motion, Defendants assert claims against the Third Party defendants for 1) breach of warranty of title in violation of Cal. Comm.Code § 2312 et. seq., 2) equitable indemnity, 3) declaratory relief, and 4) implied indemnity.”
Pure Country Weavers, Inc. v. Bristar, Inc., 410 F. Supp. 2d 439 (W.D.N.C. 2006).
“2001) (granting judgment in favor of defendant-storeown-ers on their cross-claim for indemnification against the distributors who had sold them *450 the copyright-infringing products under the warranty of title and against infringement found in Cal. Com.Code § 2312(3));…”
Mycoskie, LLC v. Ebuys, Inc., 293 F. Supp. 3d 1076 (C.D. Cal. 2017).
· cites it 4× “("Genco") breached the implied warranty of title and against infringement, under Cal. Com. Code § 2312 , when Genco sold Shoe Metro counterfeit shoes.”
The Upper Deck Co. v. Flores (S.D. Cal. 2022).
· cites it 2× “) The TPC claims that GMA and Karpuch failed to 17 notify Flores that the cards they authenticated were not authentic and violated the 18 intellectual property or publicity rights of Upper Deck.”
Linear Tech. v. Applied Materials, 61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 221 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
“3d 1390 , cited *231 by Linear, the issue was whether federal patent law directly conflicted with, and therefore preempted, Pennsylvania's commercial law, which was identical to that of California's warranty provision, Commercial Code section 2312, subdivision (3).”
in Re: Giant Eagle, Inc. (Tex. App. 2015).
“See CAL. COM. CODE § 2312(3) (West 2001). 3 It must be noted that Acer cannot “have its cake and eat it too”-by arguing the inapplicability of the forum selection clause in its reply to Mediamatics's motion to dismiss while using the same clause as its basis for the lawsuit in…”
— Cal. Commercial Code § 2312(1)(b) — 1 case
Augustine v. Talking Rain Beverage Co., 386 F. Supp. 3d 1317 (S.D. Cal. 2019).
“" CAL. COM. CODE § 2312(1)(b). *1332 "Statements made by a manufacturer through its advertising efforts can be construed as warranty statements.”
— Cal. Commercial Code § 2312(3) — 3 cases
Pure Country Weavers, Inc. v. Bristar, Inc., 410 F. Supp. 2d 439 (W.D.N.C. 2006).
“2001) (granting judgment in favor of defendant-storeown-ers on their cross-claim for indemnification against the distributors who had sold them *450 the copyright-infringing products under the warranty of title and against infringement found in Cal. Com.Code § 2312(3));…”
in Re: Giant Eagle, Inc. (Tex. App. 2015).
“See CAL. COM. CODE § 2312(3) (West 2001). 3 It must be noted that Acer cannot “have its cake and eat it too”-by arguing the inapplicability of the forum selection clause in its reply to Mediamatics's motion to dismiss while using the same clause as its basis for the lawsuit in…”
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.