(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 article on parol or extrinsic evidence (section 4-2-202), negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, 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 subsection (2) of this section:
(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 article on liquidation or limitation of damages and on contractual modification of remedy (sections 4-2-718 and 4-2-719).
Source: L. 65: p. 1311, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-316.
Notes of Decisions
Hiigel v. Gen. Motors Corp., 544 P.2d 983 (Colo. 1976).
· cites it 5× “" This notice, GMC contends, complies with the requirements of section 4-2-316(3), C. R.S.1973. That provision states that exclusions of implied warranties must be stated in "language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and…”
O'NEIL v. Int'l Harvester Co., 575 P.2d 862 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 10× “1973, 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 . . .”
Richard O'Brien Companies v. Challenge-Cook Bros., 672 F. Supp. 466 (D. Colo. 1987).
· cites it 4× “II THE VALIDITY OF THE DISCLAIMERS The validity of disclaimer clauses in Colorado is governed by Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-2-316(2). This demands that to exclude the implied warranty of merchantability, the language of the warranty must actually mention merchantability, must be in…”
Lease Fin., Inc. v. Burger, 575 P.2d 857 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “The trial court ruled that the warranties were effectively excluded thereby, and the Burgers argue that this ruling was erroneous alleging that the exclusion paragraph of the contract failed to comply with the requirements of § 4-2-316, C.R.S.1973. However, we do not reach the…”
Graham Hydraulic Power, Inc. v. Stewart & Stevenson Power, Inc., 797 P.2d 835 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 5× “Although a manufacturer has made a disclaimer of warranties that satisfies the pertinent Uniform Commercial Code provision, each subsequent seller must make his own independent disclaimer in order to be protected from warranty liability. 3 R. Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code §…”
Colorado-Ute Elec. Ass'n, Inc. v. Envirotech Corp., 524 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Colo. 1981).
· cites it 2× “The implied warranty of merchantability requires the precipitator to pass without objection in the trade under the contract description, be fit for the ordinary purpose for which it is to be used, and conform to the promises or affirmations of fact contained in the contract.”
Cooley v. Big Horn Harvestore Sys., Inc., 767 P.2d 740 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 3× “Section 4-2-316(2), C.R.S., provides: “[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…”
Loden v. Drake, 881 P.2d 467 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Also without merit is the sellers’ argument that, under § 4-2-316(3)(b), C.R.S. (1992 RepLVol. 2), there was no implied warranty of merchantability because the buyers inspected the inventory prior to closing.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-316(1) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-316(2) — 4 cases
O'NEIL v. Int'l Harvester Co., 575 P.2d 862 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
“1973, 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 . . .”
Richard O'Brien Companies v. Challenge-Cook Bros., 672 F. Supp. 466 (D. Colo. 1987).
“II THE VALIDITY OF THE DISCLAIMERS The validity of disclaimer clauses in Colorado is governed by Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-2-316(2). This demands that to exclude the implied warranty of merchantability, the language of the warranty must actually mention merchantability, must be in…”
Cooley v. Big Horn Harvestore Sys., Inc., 767 P.2d 740 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
“Section 4-2-316(2), C.R.S., provides: “[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…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-316(3) — 2 cases
Hiigel v. Gen. Motors Corp., 544 P.2d 983 (Colo. 1976).
“" This notice, GMC contends, complies with the requirements of section 4-2-316(3), C. R.S.1973. That provision states that exclusions of implied warranties must be stated in "language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and…”
Richard O'Brien Companies v. Challenge-Cook Bros., 672 F. Supp. 466 (D. Colo. 1987).
“II THE VALIDITY OF THE DISCLAIMERS The validity of disclaimer clauses in Colorado is governed by Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-2-316(2). This demands that to exclude the implied warranty of merchantability, the language of the warranty must actually mention merchantability, must be in…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-316(3)(a) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-316(3)(b) — 2 cases
Loden v. Drake, 881 P.2d 467 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
“Also without merit is the sellers’ argument that, under § 4-2-316(3)(b), C.R.S. (1992 RepLVol. 2), there was no implied warranty of merchantability because the buyers inspected the inventory prior to closing.”
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.