Cal. Codes » Commercial Code
California Codes

Cal. Commercial Code § 2314 (2026)

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

(1)Unless excluded or modified (Section 2316), 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.

(2)Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as

(a)Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and

(b)In the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and

(c)Are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and

(d)Run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and

(e)Are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require; and

(f)Conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.

(3)Unless excluded or modified (Section 2316) other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 178 cases (90 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “”), so that it states: Under California Commercial Code section 2314, the implied warranty provision invoked by Clemens, a plaintiff asserting breach of warranty claims must stand in vertical contractual privity with the defendant.”
Beck v. Fca Us LLC, 273 F. Supp. 3d 735 (E.D. Mich. 2017). · cites it 4× “; (iv) fraudulent concealment under California law; (v) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under California Commercial Code § 2314 (which is modeled on the Uniform Commercial Code); (vi) breach of express warranty under California Commercial Code § 2313; and (vii)…”
Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “Code § 2313; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, Cal. Com.Code § 2314; (3) breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, Cal.”
In re Seagate Tech. LLC Litig., 233 F. Supp. 3d 776 (N.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 3× “” Cal. Com. Code § 2314 . Seagate challenges Plaintiffs’ claim under this statute solely on the basis of a lack of privity—Seagate does not, for example, contest the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ allegations that the drives at issue fall below the standard of merchantability.”
In re Myford Touch Consum. Litig., 46 F. Supp. 3d 936 (N.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 3× “California As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have asserted two implied warranty claims under California law—one pursuant to California Commercial Code § 2314 (modeled on the UCC) and one pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.”
Zeiger v. Wellpet LLC, 304 F. Supp. 3d 837 (N.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 2× “Whether Plaintiffs Plead an Implied Warranty Claim WellPet moves to dismiss plaintiffs' implied warranty claim on the grounds that plaintiffs lack privity with WellPet, and that plaintiffs fail to allege that the Products are not fit for their ordinary purpose.”
In re FCA US LLC Monostable Elec. Gearshift Litig., 280 F. Supp. 3d 975 (E.D. Mich. 2017). · cites it 2× “Privity The defendant argues that the implied warranty claims by California plaintiffs Goldsmith, Nathan, and Pietri are defective as a matter of law because the plaintiffs allege that they bought their vehicles from third-party dealers, and California law bars any implied…”
In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., 754 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (C.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “Code § 2318 ; (5) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Cal. Com. Code § 2314 ; (6) Revocation of Acceptance, Cal.”
In re Carrier IQ, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2015). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ implied warranty claim under Cal. Comm. Code § 2314 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs will be afforded leave to amend to plead sufficient facts, as opposed to legal conclusions, establishing that an exception to the vertical privity…”
In re Conagra Foods, Inc., 90 F. Supp. 3d 919 (C.D. Cal. 2015). · cites it 2× “; (2) California Commercial Code § 2813; California Commercial Code § 2314.”
Keegan v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 838 F. Supp. 2d 929 (C.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 2× “3d at 1023 (stating that plaintiff had invoked the implied warranty provisions of California Commercial Code § 2314); Arabian, 2007 WL 627977 at *10 (stating that "California has a vertical privity requirement” and citing U.”
Shana Becerra v. Dr pepper/seven Up, Inc., 945 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2019). “Code § 2313 (1); and (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability in violation of Cal. Com. Code § 2314 . Dr Pepper moved to dismiss the second-amended complaint and the district court granted the motion without prejudice, concluding that Becerra failed to sufficiently…”
Show all 178 citing cases →
— Cal. Commercial Code § 2314(1) — 8 cases
Augustine v. Talking Rain Beverage Co., 386 F. Supp. 3d 1317 (S.D. Cal. 2019).
Viggiano v. Hansen Nat. Corp., 944 F. Supp. 2d 877 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
In Re Ferrero Litig., 794 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (S.D. Cal. 2011).
Lam v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 859 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
Diamondstar Ent. Holdings, LLC v. THH LLC (C.D. Cal. 2022).
— Cal. Commercial Code § 2314(2) — 9 cases
Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2009). “Code § 2313; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, Cal. Com.Code § 2314; (3) breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, Cal.”
Cholakyan v. Mercedes-benz USA, LLC, 796 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
Keegan v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 838 F. Supp. 2d 929 (C.D. Cal. 2012). “3d at 1023 (stating that plaintiff had invoked the implied warranty provisions of California Commercial Code § 2314); Arabian, 2007 WL 627977 at *10 (stating that "California has a vertical privity requirement” and citing U.”
Asghari v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 42 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
Viggiano v. Hansen Nat. Corp., 944 F. Supp. 2d 877 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
— Cal. Commercial Code § 2314(2)(a) — 1 case
Hendricks v. Starkist Co., 30 F. Supp. 3d 917 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
— Cal. Commercial Code § 2314(2)(b) — 1 case
Diamondstar Ent. Holdings, LLC v. THH LLC (C.D. Cal. 2022).
— Cal. Commercial Code § 2314(2)(c) — 3 cases
In re Conagra Foods, Inc., 90 F. Supp. 3d 919 (C.D. Cal. 2015). “; (2) California Commercial Code § 2813; California Commercial Code § 2314.”
Allen v. Hyland's Inc., 300 F.R.D. 643 (C.D. Cal. 2014).
S. California Stroke Rehab. Assocs., Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (S.D. Cal. 2011).
— Cal. Commercial Code § 2314(2)(f) — 10 cases
In Re Ferrero Litig., 794 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (S.D. Cal. 2011).
Maeda v. Pinnacle Foods Inc., 390 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (2019).
Anderberg v. The Hain Celestial Grp., Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2023).
Pennie Roper v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2020).
Hanson v. Welch Foods Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020).
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.