Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-315
Implied warranty - fitness for particular purpose
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is, unless excluded or modified under section 4-2-316, an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.
Source: L. 65: p. 1311, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-315.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1975–2023 · leading case: Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc.
Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc. (1984)
“As noted in comment 2 to section 4-2-315: "A `particular purpose' differs from the ordinary purpose for which the goods are used in that it envisages a specific use by the buyer which is peculiar to the nature of his business whereas the ordinary purposes for which goods are…”
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation (2016)
“Code § 2315 ; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-315 ; Del. Code tit.”
Fiberglass Component Production, Inc. v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. (1997)
“§ 4-2-315, C.R.S. and Official Comments 1 and 2; Blockhead, Inc.”
Union Supply Co. v. Pust (1978)
“1973), and also that it was not fit for the particular purpose for which it was required (section 4-2-315, C.R.S. 1973). Each of these claims presented issues of material fact which should have been submitted to the jury for resolution.”
Wallman v. Kelley (1998)
“1997, and, as to Kelley, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose under § 4-2-315, C.R.S. 1997. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment which the trial court granted, and this appeal followed.”
Hawkinson v. AH Robins Co., Inc. (1984)
“C.R.S. § 4-2-315. A “particular purpose” differs from the ordinary purpose for which the goods are used in that it envisages a specific use by the buyer which is peculiar to the buyer; whereas, the ordinary purposes for which goods are used are those envisaged in the concept of…”
Belle Bonfils Memorial Blood Bank v. Hansen (1983)
“See Uniform Commercial Code, section 4-2-315, C.R.S.1973. Under the facts of this case, the Blood Bank’s establishment of the elements of comment k would operate as a defense to the claims for breach of implied warranties as well.”
Colorado-Ute Elec. Ass'n, Inc. v. Envirotech Corp. (1981)
“Where the seller has reason to know of the particular purpose for which the buyer is purchasing the goods, and the buyer relies on the seller’s representations that the goods can meet that purpose, there is an implied warranty that the goods will accomplish the buyer’s purpose.”
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Crissy Fowler Lumber Co. (1984)
“Section 4-2-315, C.R.S., provides: “Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is .”
Leica Geosystems, Inc. v. L.W.S. Leasing, Inc. (2012)
“Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-2-315. See also GaCode Ann.”
Deacon v. American Plant Food Corp. (1989)
“Section 4-2-315, C.R.S. The trial court found that, because the fertilizer contained herbicides, it was neither fit for its ordinary purposes nor for the plaintiffs’ particular purposes.”
Thomas v. Bove (1984)
“, and (3) an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose under § 4-2-315, C.R.S. Buyers also contend that the court erred in failing to find a breach by seller of each of those warranties.”
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.