16 C.F.R. § 700.4

Parties “actually making” a written warranty

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 110(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310(f), provides that only the supplier “actually making” a written warranty is liable for purposes of FTC and private enforcement of the Act. A supplier who does no more than distribute or sell a consumer product covered by a written warranty offered by another person or business and which identifies that person or business as the warrantor is not liable for failure of the written warranty to comply with the Act or rules thereunder. However, other actions and written and oral representations of such a supplier in connection with the offer or sale of a warranted product may obligate that supplier under the Act. If under State law the supplier is deemed to have “adopted” the written affirmation of fact, promise, or undertaking, the supplier is also obligated under the Act. Suppliers are advised to consult State law to determine those actions and representations which may make them co-warrantors, and therefore obligated under the warranty of the other person or business.

[42 FR 36114, July 13, 1977, as amended at 80 FR 42721, July 20, 2015]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case: Rokicsak v. Colony Marine Sales & Serv., Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 810 (E.D. Mich. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rokicsak v. Colony Marine Sales & Serv., Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 810 (E.D. Mich. 2002). · cites it 3× “” Plaintiff also cites 16 C.F.R. § 700.4 for the proposition that Colony Marine “adopted” the express warranties of co-defendants Sea Ray and Caterpillar.”

Semitekol v. Monaco Coach Corp., 582 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (N.D. Ill. 2008). “See 16 C.F.R. § 700.4 . In Illinois, “the mere delivery, presentation or explanation of a manufacturer’s warranty, without more, does not render a dealer a cow-arrantor by adoption.”

Lytle v. Roto Lincoln Mercury & Subaru, Inc., 521 N.E.2d 201 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988). “Suppliers are advised to consult State law to determine those actions and representations which may make them co-warrantors, and therefore obligated under the warranty of the other person or business.”

Motor Homes of Am., Inc. v. O'DONNELL, 440 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). “Title 16 C.F.R. § 700.4 states: § 700.4 Parties "actually making" a written warranty.”

FinanceAmerica v. Barnaby, 2 Va. Cir. 33 (Henrico Cir. Ct. 1981). “Bischoff’s letter of April 1, 1980, with particular reference to 16 C.F.R. 700.4). The case came on for trial on October 29-30, 1980, without a jury.”

Beyer v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 287 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “If under State law the supplier is deemed to have ‘adopted’ the written [warranty] the supplier is also obligated under the [statute]” (16 CFR 700.4). The plaintiff’s complaint and submissions in opposition to the appellant’s motion allege conduct on the part of the appellant…”

Laznovsky v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 190 Misc. 2d 537 (2002). · cites it 3× ““A supplier who does no more than distribute or sell a consumer product covered by a written warranty offered by another person or business and which identifies that person or business as the warrantor is not liable for failure of the written warranty to comply with the Act or…”

Watkins v. Great S. Wood Preserving Inc. (N.D. Ala. 2022). “” 16 C.F.R. 700.4. Thus, CFP argues, because Watkins alleges Koppers supplies a warranty “through CFP,” the MMWA claim fails as a matter of law.”

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.