(1)Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to negate or limit warranty shall be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but subject to the provisions of this division on parol or extrinsic evidence (Section 2202) negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable.
(2)Subject to subdivision (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that “There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof.”
(3)Notwithstanding subdivision (2)
(a)Unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like “as is,” “with all faults” or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer’s attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty; and
(b)When the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the goods or the sample or model as fully as he desired or has refused to examine the goods there is no implied warranty with regard to defects which an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to him; and
(c)An implied warranty can also be excluded or modified by course of dealing or course of performance or usage of trade.
(4)Remedies for breach of warranty can be limited in accordance with the provisions of this division on liquidation or limitation of damages and on contractual modification of remedy (Sections 2718 and 2719).
Notes of Decisions
In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig., 293 F. Supp. 3d 888 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
· cites it 2× “California law on limiting warranties provides that "[w]ords or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to negate or limit warranty shall be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but.”
In re Myford Touch Consum. Litig., 291 F. Supp. 3d 936 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Code § 1201 (10) ; see also Cal. Com. Code § 2316 (2). The statute further provides: Whether a term is "conspicuous" or not is a decision for the court.”
Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc., 52 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 414 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
“For example, Commercial Code section 2316 allows the parties to disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability.”
Frenzel v. Aliphcom, 76 F. Supp. 3d 999 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
“” Cal. Com. Code § 2316 ; see also, Smith, 2014 WL 989742 at *6.”
Minkler v. Apple, Inc., 65 F. Supp. 3d 810 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
“” Cal. Com. Code § 2316 (3)(a). Here, Apple’s Hardware Warranty disclaimed all implied warranties in accordance with California law because it stated in clear language and capitalized formatting that Apple “disclaims all statutory and implied warranties, including without…”
Krotin v. Porsche Cars North Am., Inc., 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7333 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).
“Code, §§ 2711-2721); but punitive damages are unavailable, and limitations of liability and disclaimers or modifications of warranties are permitted (Com. Code, § 2316). (See Krieger, supra, 234 *301 Cal.”
Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
“Cal. Com.Code § 2316(2). Plaintiff does not argue that the disclaimer in HP’s Limited Warranty failed to mention merchantability or was insufficiently conspicuous.”
Backus v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 122 F. Supp. 3d 909 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
“” Cal. Com. Code § 2316 . Courts in food cases have held that a label that discloses the presence of an unhealthy ingredient precludes liability under the implied warranty of merchantability.”
Rottner v. AVG Tech. USA, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 222 (D. Mass. 2013).
“See Cal. Com.Code § 2316 (“[T]o exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a…”
— Cal. Commercial Code § 2316(1) — 1 case
— Cal. Commercial Code § 2316(2) — 2 cases
Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
“Cal. Com.Code § 2316(2). Plaintiff does not argue that the disclaimer in HP’s Limited Warranty failed to mention merchantability or was insufficiently conspicuous.”
— Cal. Commercial Code § 2316(3)(b) — 1 case
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.