(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 2-202) negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), 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)
(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 or she 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 or her; 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 2-718 and 2-719).
(5) The implied warranties of merchantability and fitness shall not be applicable to a contract for the sale of human blood, blood plasma or other human tissue or organs from a blood bank or reservoir of such other tissues or organs. Such blood, blood plasma or tissue or organs shall not for the purposes of this Article be considered commodities or goods subject to sale or barter, but shall be considered as medical services.
5A Del. C. 1953,
§§
2-316;
55 Del. Laws, c. 349;
55 Del. Laws, c. 391;
70 Del. Laws, c. 186,
§
1;
Notes of Decisions
Franchetti v. Intercole Automation, Inc., 523 F. Supp. 454 (D. Del. 1981).
“§ 2-607(3)(a), the existence of disclaimers, 6 Del.C. § 2-316 or, most importantly in the context of the instant case, the term of the applicable contract statute of limitations, 6 Del.”
Dow Chem. Canada Inc. Ex Rel. Dow Chem. Co. v. HRD Corp., 656 F. Supp. 2d 427 (D. Del. 2009).
“6 Del. C. § 2-316 (“[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 must be by a…”
Strange v. Keiper Recaro Seating, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 408 (D. Del. 2000).
“According to 6 Del.C. § 2-316(2): Subject to subsection (3), 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…”
Talkdesk, Inc. v. DM Trans, LLC d/b/a Arrive Logistics (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 3× “179 Arrive argues that it has sufficiently pled under the low pleading standards an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and “[a]ny questions regarding the provision in the MSA are questions of fact and, therefore, 176 6 Del. C. § 2-316(2). “Language to exclude…”
True North Composites, LLC v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 65 F. App'x 266 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
“True North, on the other hand, contends that the inclusion of the warranty provisions is probative of the parties’ recognition that the UCC did not apply and that the inclusion of the provisions indicates that the parties “endeavored to make explicit that the UCC did not apply…”
Kathleen M. Szczerba v. Am. Cigarette Outlet, Inc. (Del. Super. Ct. 2016).
“46 See Barba, 2014 WL 1678246 , at *3-4 (citing 6 Del. C. § 2-316(2)). “[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…”
Petty v. Rcp III, LLC (Del. Super. Ct. 2019).
“11 However “[l]itigants, whether represented by counsel or appearing pro se, must diligently prepare their cases for trial or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute.”
Miller v. Leidos, Inc. (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
“89 6 Del. C. § 2-316; 6 Del. C. § 2-314(1) (stating implied warranty of merchantability claims are only recognized if not excluded or modified); 6 Del.”
— 6 Del. C. § 2-316(2) — 4 cases
Strange v. Keiper Recaro Seating, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 408 (D. Del. 2000).
“According to 6 Del.C. § 2-316(2): Subject to subsection (3), 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…”
True North Composites, LLC v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 65 F. App'x 266 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
“True North, on the other hand, contends that the inclusion of the warranty provisions is probative of the parties’ recognition that the UCC did not apply and that the inclusion of the provisions indicates that the parties “endeavored to make explicit that the UCC did not apply…”
Kathleen M. Szczerba v. Am. Cigarette Outlet, Inc. (Del. Super. Ct. 2016).
“46 See Barba, 2014 WL 1678246 , at *3-4 (citing 6 Del. C. § 2-316(2)). “[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…”
Talkdesk, Inc. v. DM Trans, LLC d/b/a Arrive Logistics (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
“179 Arrive argues that it has sufficiently pled under the low pleading standards an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and “[a]ny questions regarding the provision in the MSA are questions of fact and, therefore, 176 6 Del. C. § 2-316(2). “Language to exclude…”
— 6 Del. C. § 2-316(3)(a) — 2 cases
Talkdesk, Inc. v. DM Trans, LLC d/b/a Arrive Logistics (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
“179 Arrive argues that it has sufficiently pled under the low pleading standards an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and “[a]ny questions regarding the provision in the MSA are questions of fact and, therefore, 176 6 Del. C. § 2-316(2). “Language to exclude…”
Petty v. Rcp III, LLC (Del. Super. Ct. 2019).
“11 However “[l]itigants, whether represented by counsel or appearing pro se, must diligently prepare their cases for trial or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute.”
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.