Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Weinstat v. Dentsply International, Inc.green2 sentences2018Breach of Warranty As we explained in Weinstat , " Section 2313, subdivision (1)(a) and (b) of the California Uniform Commercial Code governs this cause, providing that express warranties are created as follows: '(a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise. [¶] (b) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the descript 2018Breach of Warranty As we explained in Weinstat , " Section 2313, subdivision (1)(a) and (b) of the California Uniform Commercial Code governs this cause, providing that express warranties are created as follows: '(a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise. [¶] (b) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the descript | 1 | 1 |
Keith v. Buchanangreen2 sentences2010(Keith v. Buchanan (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 13, 20 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 392 ] (Keith).) Pre-Uniform Commercial Code law governing express warranties required the purchaser to prove reliance on specific promises made by the seller. 2010(Keith v. Buchanan (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 13, 20 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 392 ] (Keith).) Pre-Uniform Commercial Code law governing express warranties required the purchaser to prove reliance on specific promises made by the seller. | 1 | 1 |
Osborne v. Subaru of America, Inc.green2 sentences2010In support of this ruling the trial court cited Osborne v. Subaru of America, Inc. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 646, 661 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 815 ] (Osborne). 2010In support of this ruling the trial court cited Osborne v. Subaru of America, Inc. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 646, 661 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 815 ] (Osborne). | 1 | 1 |
Perdue v. Crocker National Bankgreen2 sentences1993We deal post with negligence as a theory of products liability. 10 Civil Code section 1668 provides: “All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt any one from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.” 11 The Supreme Court has noted that the division of the unconscionability analysis into two elements conforms more closely to the Uniform Commercial Code but should lead to the same result as the common law analysis expressed in Gr 1993We deal post with negligence as a theory of products liability. 10 Civil Code section 1668 provides: “All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt any one from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.” 11 The Supreme Court has noted that the division of the unconscionability analysis into two elements conforms more closely to the Uniform Commercial Code but should lead to the same result as the common law analysis expressed in Gr | 1 | 1 |
General Motors Corp. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1993(General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 435, 443-444 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 622 ].) 7 “A release may be executed before or after the event giving rise to potential liability . . . .” (17 Schwing, Cal. Practice, Defenses in Civil Actions (1989) §§ 42.1-42.4, pp. 574-583 [pre-event releases subject to closer scrutiny].) 8 We note the trial court’s summary adjudication in favor of the distributor defendants on the breach of express warranty claim was based not on the written agreement but on the court’s conclusion that the only express statements upon which plaintiff relied were t 1993(General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 435, 443-444 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 622 ].) 7 “A release may be executed before or after the event giving rise to potential liability . . . .” (17 Schwing, Cal. Practice, Defenses in Civil Actions (1989) §§ 42.1-42.4, pp. 574-583 [pre-event releases subject to closer scrutiny].) 8 We note the trial court’s summary adjudication in favor of the distributor defendants on the breach of express warranty claim was based not on the written agreement but on the court’s conclusion that the only express statements upon which plaintiff relied were t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2015(Id. at pp 831-832.) 17 The court in Daugherty reasoned: “. . . in giving its promise to repair or replace any part that was defective in material or workmanship and stating the car was covered for three years or 36,000 miles, Honda ‘did not agree, and plaintiffs did not understand it to agree, to repair latent defects that lead to a malfunction after the term of the warranty.’ ” (Daugherty, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 832 .) The court stated further: “ ‘[v]irtually all product failures discovered . . . after expiration of the warranty can be attributed to a “latent defect” that existed at th 2015(Id. at pp. 831-832.) The court in Daugherty reasoned: “in giving its promise to repair or replace any part that was defective in material or workmanship and stating *1181 the car was covered for three years or 36,000 miles, Honda ‘did not agree, and plaintiffs did not understand it to agree, to repair latent defects that lead to a malfunction after the term of the warranty.’ ” (Daugherty; supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 832 .) The court stated further: “ ‘[virtually all product failures discovered . . . after expiration of the warranty can be attributed to a “latent defect” that existed at the t | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.