Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 4
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-314 (2026)

Implied warranty - merchantability - usage of trade

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Unless excluded or modified (section 4-2-316), 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 4-2-316), other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.

Source: L. 65: p. 1310, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-314.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Hiigel v. Gen. Motors Corp., 544 P.2d 983 (Colo. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hiigel v. Gen. Motors Corp., 544 P.2d 983 (Colo. 1976). · cites it 6× “The finding of the trial court that he was merely an agent is not supported by the evidence in the record, and we, therefore, reverse it. The trial court did not assess damages.”
Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 187 (Colo. 1984). · cites it 4× “§ 4-2-314(1). Merchantability, as pertinent here, means that the goods “[a]re fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used,” § 4-2-314(2)(c), “[a]re adequately contained, packaged, and labeled,” § 4-2-314(2)(e), and “[ejonform to the promises or affirmations of…”
Union Supply Co. v. Pust, 583 P.2d 276 (Colo. 1978). · cites it 3× “He alleged that the conveyor system was not merchantable because it was not fit for the ordinary purposes for which it was used (section 4-2-314(2)(c), C.R.S. 1973), and also that it was not fit for the particular purpose for which it was required (section 4-2-315, C.”
Hawkinson v. AH Robins Co., Inc., 595 F. Supp. 1290 (D. Colo. 1984). · cites it 4× “§ 4-2-313, because through advertising materials, labeling, detailmen, and other means, Robins expressly assured that the Daikon Shield was safe and superior to other intrauterine devices. The plaintiffs also assert that Robins breached implied warranties of merchantability and…”
Sanchez v. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Larimer, 624 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1981). · cites it 3× “1973; wrongful repossession and conversion; intentional misrepresentation; breach of implied warranty of merchantability, section 4-2-314, C.R.S.1973; deceptive trade practices, section 6-1-105, C.”
Belle Bonfils Mem'l Blood Bank v. Hansen, 665 P.2d 118 (Colo. 1983). · cites it 3× “For example, Uniform Commercial Code section 4-2-314(2)(f), C.R.S.1973, provides that to be merchantable, goods must “[c]onform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.”
Pust v. Union Supply Co., 561 P.2d 355 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 3× “Section 4-2-314, C.R.S. 1973. See Hiigel v.”
City of Westminster v. MOA, INC., 867 P.2d 137 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “See § 4-2-314(2)(C), C.R.S. (1992 Repl.Vol. 2).”
In re Conagra Foods, Inc., 302 F.R.D. 537 (C.D. Cal. 2014). “§ 4-2-313; (2) Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-2-314; (4) Unjust Enrichment.”
Colorado-Ute Elec. Ass'n, Inc. v. Envirotech Corp., 524 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Colo. 1981). · cites it 2× “No power company purchasing a precipitator to enable it to comply with the law would find acceptable a precipitator that is incapable of meeting state-prescribed minimum air quality levels.”
Fiberglass Component Prod., Inc. v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 983 F. Supp. 948 (D. Colo. 1997). · cites it 2× “Section 4-2-314; C.R.S. To be “merchantable,” the goods must be fit for their ordinary purpose.”
Loden v. Drake, 881 P.2d 467 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “Under the circumstances, the trial court did not err in concluding that this failure constituted a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under § 4-2-314, C.R.S. (1992 Repl.Vol. 2), entitling the buyers to reject the undocumented portion of the liquor inventory.”
Show all 35 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-314(1) — 1 case
Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 187 (Colo. 1984). “§ 4-2-314(1). Merchantability, as pertinent here, means that the goods “[a]re fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used,” § 4-2-314(2)(c), “[a]re adequately contained, packaged, and labeled,” § 4-2-314(2)(e), and “[ejonform to the promises or affirmations of…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-314(2) — 1 case
Strong v. Retail Credit Co., 552 P.2d 1025 (Colo. Ct. App. 1976).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-314(2)(C) — 1 case
City of Westminster v. MOA, INC., 867 P.2d 137 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “See § 4-2-314(2)(C), C.R.S. (1992 Repl.Vol. 2).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-314(2)(c) — 3 cases
Union Supply Co. v. Pust, 583 P.2d 276 (Colo. 1978). “He alleged that the conveyor system was not merchantable because it was not fit for the ordinary purposes for which it was used (section 4-2-314(2)(c), C.R.S. 1973), and also that it was not fit for the particular purpose for which it was required (section 4-2-315, C.”
Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 187 (Colo. 1984). “§ 4-2-314(1). Merchantability, as pertinent here, means that the goods “[a]re fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used,” § 4-2-314(2)(c), “[a]re adequately contained, packaged, and labeled,” § 4-2-314(2)(e), and “[ejonform to the promises or affirmations of…”
Shaffer v. FCA US LLC (D. Colo. 2022).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-314(2)(e) — 1 case
Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 187 (Colo. 1984). “§ 4-2-314(1). Merchantability, as pertinent here, means that the goods “[a]re fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used,” § 4-2-314(2)(c), “[a]re adequately contained, packaged, and labeled,” § 4-2-314(2)(e), and “[ejonform to the promises or affirmations of…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-314(2)(f) — 2 cases
Belle Bonfils Mem'l Blood Bank v. Hansen, 665 P.2d 118 (Colo. 1983). “For example, Uniform Commercial Code section 4-2-314(2)(f), C.R.S.1973, provides that to be merchantable, goods must “[c]onform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.”
Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 187 (Colo. 1984). “§ 4-2-314(1). Merchantability, as pertinent here, means that the goods “[a]re fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used,” § 4-2-314(2)(c), “[a]re adequately contained, packaged, and labeled,” § 4-2-314(2)(e), and “[ejonform to the promises or affirmations of…”
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.