O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316 (2019)

Annotations

Cross references. Prohibition against sale, auction, transfer, or movement of livestock infected with disease or placed under quarantine by Commissioner of Agriculture, § 4-6-2. Regulation of labeling of blood, T. 31, C. 24. For further provisions as to nonapplicability of implied warranties to blood transfusions and organ transplants, § 51-1-28. Law reviews. For comment on Felder v. Neeves, 36 Ga. App. 41, 135 S.E. 219 (1926), see Ga. L. Rev. No. 1 p. 51 (1927). For article, “Sales Warranties Under Georgia’s Uniform Commercial Code,” see 1 Ga. St. B.J. 191 (1964). For note discussing implied warranties in the sale of second-hand goods, see 17 Mercer L. Rev. 455 (1966). For article, “Georgia’s New Statutory Liability for Manufacturers: An Inadequate Legislative Response,” see 2 Ga. L. Rev. 538 (1968). For comment on Manheim v. Ford Motor Co., 210 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1967), discussing effect of automobile manufacturer’s disclaimer of the Uniform Commercial Code’s implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, see 2 Ga. L. Rev. 314 (1968). For article, “Consumer Protection Against Sellers Misrepresentations,” see 20 Mercer L. Rev. 414 (1969). For article discussing interpretation of warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code, see 4 Ga. L. Rev. 469 (1970). For note, “Allowance of Punitive Dam-

ages in Products Liability Claims,” see 6 Ga. L. Rev. 613 (1972). For note, “Buyer’s Right to Revoke Acceptance Against the Automobile Manufacturer for Breach of its Continuing Warranty of Repair or Replacement,” see 7 Ga. L. Rev. 711 (1973). For article discussing the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, see 9 Ga. L. Rev. 149 (1974). For article, “Products Liability Law in Georgia: Is Change Coming?,” see 10 Ga. St. B.J. 353 (1974). For article explaining the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, proposed in Georgia in 1973, see 10 Ga. St. B. J. 409 (1974). For article surveying Georgia cases dealing with commercial law from June 1977 through May 1978, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 15 (1978). For article discussing the applicability of warranty provisions under the Uniform Commercial Code to domestic solar energy devices, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 547 (1979). For article surveying developments in Georgia commercial law from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 33 (1981). For comment, “Damage Awards and Computer Systems - Trends,” see 35 Emory L.J. 255 (1986). For note, “Enforcing Manufacturers’ Warranty Exclusions Against Non-Privity Commercial Purchasers: The Need for Uniform Guidelines,” see 20 Ga. L. Rev. 461 (1986). For article, “Products Liability Law in Georgia Including Recent Developments,” see 43 Mercer L. Rev. 27 (1991). For comment, “U.C.C. Article Two Warranty Disclaimers and the ‘Conspicuous-

ness’ Requirement of Section 2-316,” see 43 Mercer L. Rev. 943 (1992). For article, “Giving Unconscionability

More Muscle: Attorney’s Fees as a Remedy for Contractual Overreaching,” see 44 Ga. L. Rev. 317 (2010).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS ANALYSIS GENERAL CONSIDERATION WRITING REQUIREMENT LEASES IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY GOODS “SOLD AS IS” BUYER’S EXAMINATION OF GOODS ACTIONS General Consideration Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1910, § 4136 and former Code 1933, § 96-301 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Unconscionability of exclusion or modification. - Although a seller may exclude or modify warranties, a court may refuse to enforce an exclusion or modification on the basis of unconscionability. Mullis v. Speight Seed Farms, Inc., 234 Ga. App. 27, 505 S.E.2d 818, 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 1136 (1998), cert. denied, No. S98C1966, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 37 (Ga. Jan. 8, 1999). Implied warranties exist unless expressly or from nature of transaction excepted. Wilson v. Eargle, 98 Ga. App. 241, 105 S.E.2d 474, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 557 (1958) (decided under former Code 1933, § 96-301). Purpose of O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316 includes preventing indirect elimination of warranty liability through indemnification. Redfern Meats, Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 134 Ga. App. 381, 215 S.E.2d 10, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 2021 (1975). How warranties are raised. - Implied warranty is raised by statute, while express warranty is by contract. Stewart v. Gainesville Glass Co., 131 Ga. App. 747, 206 S.E.2d 857, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1542 (1974), aff’d, 233 Ga. 578, 212 S.E.2d 377, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 1377 (1975). O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316 does not apply to a warranty under O.C.G.A. § 44-1263. Redfern Meats, Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 134

Ga. App. 381, 215 S.E.2d 10, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 2021 (1975). An agreement for the installation and maintenance of a protective alarm system was not a sale and, as a result, the implied warranty and other U.C.C. considerations were not applicable. D.L. Lee & Sons v. ADT Sec. Sys., 916 F. Supp. 1571, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20330 (S.D. Ga. 1995). Section does not govern limitation of remedies. - The provisions of O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316 have no bearing on the seller’s ability to achieve the less comprehensive legal effect of limiting the remedies which are available to the buyer for breach of implied warranties. It is the separate provisions of O.C.G.A. §§ 11-2718 or 11-2-719 which govern the limitation of remedies. Apex Supply Co. v. Benbow Indus., Inc., 189 Ga. App. 598, 376 S.E.2d 694, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 1472 (1988). No public policy against all disclaimers. - Disclaimer provisions of O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316 do not establish public policy against use of disclaimers in all commercial transactions. Redfern Meats, Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 134 Ga. App. 381, 215 S.E.2d 10, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 2021 (1975). It is unreasonable to allow express warranty to be negated by disclaimer in same contract. Century Dodge, Inc. v. Mobley, 155 Ga. App. 712, 272 S.E.2d 502, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2756 (1980). Contract for sale of car describing it as new created express warranty to that ef-

fect which was not negated by disclaimer of express warranties in same contract. Century Dodge, Inc. v. Mobley, 155 Ga. App. 712, 272 S.E.2d 502, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2756 (1980). Disclaimer limiting liability to purchase price unconscionable. - A disclaimer of liability for breach of warranty by a tobacco seed manufacturer, which stated that liability would be limited to the purchase price, was unconscionable and would not be enforced; an absence of liability on the part of the manufacturer would leave farmers with no recourse for a loss caused by a crop failure, and the allocation of risk for ineffective seeds is better shouldered by the manufacturer than the consumer. Mullis v. Speight Seed Farms, Inc., 234 Ga. App. 27, 505 S.E.2d 818, 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 1136 (1998), cert. denied, No. S98C1966, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 37 (Ga. Jan. 8, 1999). Consequential damages excluded by warranty. - Seller was not liable for consequential damages resulting from alleged breach of warranty arising from defects in its goods where seller’s written warranty specifically limited any liability to repairing or replacing any defective goods and where buyer had notice of the existence of the written warranty but never requested or saw a copy of the written warranty. A-Larms, Inc. v. Alarms Device Mfg. Co., 165 Ga. App. 382, 300 S.E.2d 311, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1879 (1983). Description of vehicle as “new” not inconsistent with recognition of possible factory-damage. - There is nothing unreasonable or inconsistent in an affirmation, promise or description by a manufacturer that its vehicle is “new” and its recognition that, even so, the vehicle might contain factory-damage and/or factory-repairs. GMC v. Green, 173 Ga. App. 188, 325 S.E.2d 794, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2754 (1984). Prior contrary oral representations merged into written contract. - Where there was a written contract covering the sale of an engine from plaintiff to defendant, which contained certain stipulations and warranties by plaintiff, any oral agreement by plaintiff at time of or before written agreement was entered

into to the contrary would be merged into and done away with by the written agreement. Worthington Pump & Mach. Corp. v. Briarcliff, 67 Ga. App. 71, 19 S.E.2d 574, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 338 (1942) (decided under former Code 1933, § 96-301). Revocation of acceptance under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608 is an available remedy even where the seller has attempted to limit its warranties. Esquire Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Arrendale, 182 Ga. App. 528, 356 S.E.2d 250, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1714 (1987). Revocation is an available remedy even where the seller has attempted to limit its warranties by use of “as is” language under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316. Prudential Metal Supply Corp. v. Atlantic Freight Sales Co., 204 Ga. App. 439, 419 S.E.2d 520, 1992 Ga. App. LEXIS 861 (1992). Where there is no express covenant of warranty, purchaser must exercise caution in detecting defects. Smith v. Northeast Ga. Fair Ass’n, 85 Ga. App. 32, 67 S.E.2d 836, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 994 (1951) (decided under former Code 1933, § 96-301). Waiver of implied warranty. - A contract drawn so as to waive implied warranties written into sale by law should be clear and certain on that point. Wilson v. Eargle, 98 Ga. App. 241, 105 S.E.2d 474, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 557 (1958) (decided under former Code 1933, § 96-301). Acceptance of article with obvious defect waives claim for damages growing out of implied warranty. - If defects or discrepancies in article purchased are patent, such as might have been discovered by exercise of ordinary care and prudence, then acceptance by purchaser, in the absence of fraud, will operate as an absolute waiver on the purchaser’s part even of a claim for damages growing out of an implied warranty, but such mere acceptance will not prevent the purchaser from making a claim for damages arising out of an express warranty. Evans v. Mitchell, 44 Ga. App. 695, 162 S.E. 660, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 458 (1932) (decided under former Code 1910, § 4136). Purchaser’s acceptance of property bought with full knowledge of its defective condition constitutes waiver of implied

General Consideration (Cont’d) warranty that property is in merchantable condition and suited for purpose intended. Smith v. Northeast Ga. Fair Ass’n, 85 Ga. App. 32, 67 S.E.2d 836, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 994 (1951) (decided under former Code 1933, § 96-301). Writing Requirement Conspicuous writing. - Requirement that disclaimer terms be conspicuous follows main current of interpretation of O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316. White v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 158 Ga. App. 373, 280 S.E.2d 398, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2213 (1981). O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316(2) requires that, to exclude or modify an implied warranty of fitness, the actual warranty disclaimer language itself be conspicuous. That requirement is not satisfied if the disclaimer provision contains only general introductory language which is conspicuous. Leland Indus., Inc. v. Suntek Indus., Inc., 184 Ga. App. 635, 362 S.E.2d 441, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 2352 (1987). Warranty disclaimer language was “conspicuous” where it appeared in capital letters, in a separate paragraph on the front of an invoice, and in a type style which was otherwise employed on the form only with regard to language relating to the limitation of remedies. Apex Supply Co. v. Benbow Indus., Inc., 189 Ga. App. 598, 376 S.E.2d 694, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 1472 (1988). Although, by its terms, O.C.G.A. § 112-316(3)(a) does not explicitly require that the “other language” be conspicuous, it implicitly imposes such a requirement. Leland Indus., Inc. v. Suntek Indus., Inc., 184 Ga. App. 635, 362 S.E.2d 441, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 2352 (1987). A writing would, regardless of its “conspicuousness,” be ineffective to disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability if that writing nowhere specifically mentions “merchantability.” Leland Indus., Inc. v. Suntek Indus., Inc., 184 Ga. App. 635, 362 S.E.2d 441, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 2352 (1987). Effect of font. - Language printed in type which was bolder and larger than that generally used in the document, and

emphasized by capitalization and by being within a dark bordered rectangle, was sufficiently conspicuous to satisfy the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316(2). Webster v. Sensormatic Elec. Corp., 193 Ga. App. 654, 389 S.E.2d 15, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 1604 (1989). Modification need not be in writing. - Modification or restitution of the remedy available for breach of warranty need not be in writing. Parole evidence to show the usage of the trade to explain or supplement the available remedies for breach of warranty was improperly excluded. Topeka Mach. Exch., Inc. v. Stoler Indus., Inc., 220 Ga. App. 799, 470 S.E.2d 250, 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 233 (1996). Leases Inapplicability to auto lease not providing for purchase at termination. - Restrictions of O.C.G.A. § 11-2316 on exclusion of warranties are not applicable to lease contract for automobile containing no provision for purchase at termination. Mays v. Citizens & S. Nat’l Bank, 132 Ga. App. 602, 208 S.E.2d 614, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1759 (1974), overruled by Mock v. Canterbury Realty Co., 152 Ga. App. 872, 264 S.E.2d 489, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 1639 (1980). Where a lessee leased a vehicle for four years, title remained with the assignee, and the lessee was required to surrender the car at the expiration of the lease term, there being no option to purchase it, neither the implied warranty provisions nor the exclusion rules therefor of the Uniform Commercial Code applied to the lease agreement. Mark Singleton Buick, Inc. v. Taylor, 194 Ga. App. 630, 391 S.E.2d 435, 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 288 (1990). Debtor may waive any defense of nonexpressed warranties in plain language in a lease, and such waiver is enforceable under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316 by party to the lease. Hurst v. Stith Equip. Co., 133 Ga. App. 374, 210 S.E.2d 851, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1076 (1974). Implied Warranty of Merchantability Implied warranty of merchantability runs only to buyer. - Implied warranty that goods are merchantable clearly arises out of contract of sale of goods, so it

can only run to buyer who is in privity of contract with seller. Chaffin v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 127 Ga. App. 619, 194 S.E.2d 513, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 977 (1972). Second-hand sales. - When article sold, even though used or second-hand, was sold by seller who “is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind,” an implied warranty of merchantability attaches to the sale under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-314 unless excluded or modified by O.C.G.A. § 11-2316. Georgia Timberlands, Inc. v. Southern Airways Co., 125 Ga. App. 404, 188 S.E.2d 108, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1351 (1972). Statement of mileage. - It is an illogical extension to include within the concept of warranty of merchantability or fitness for purposes intended a statement of mileage required by an unrelated statute absent any showing that the statement of mileage is incorrect and/or connected to the injuries suffered. Troutt v. Nash AMC/Jeep, Inc., 157 Ga. App. 399, 278 S.E.2d 54, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1838 (1981). Georgia’s “blood shield” statutes applied to a commercial laboratory, so as to bar a hemophiliac’s strict liability and breach of warranty claims against the laboratory for a defective blood-clotting agent which allegedly exposed the hemophiliac to the virus associated with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Jones v. Miles Labs., Inc., 705 F. Supp. 561, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14562 (N.D. Ga. 1987). Exclusions must be conspicuous. - Exclusions of implied warranties of fitness or merchantability must be in writing and conspicuous. White v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 158 Ga. App. 373, 280 S.E.2d 398, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2213 (1981). Exclusion by course of conduct. - Implied warranty provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) did not apply to a settlement between a supplier and a customer because the primary purpose of the settlement was not a sale of goods, but was to resolve a dispute about whether the customer was obligated to purchase any goods and whether the goods were merchantable. Alternatively, under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316(3)(c), the par-

ties had excluded the UCC’s implied warranties based upon the parties course of conduct. Hanson Staple Co. v. Ole Mexican Foods, Inc., 293 Ga. App. 4, 666 S.E.2d 398, 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 764 (2008), aff’d, 285 Ga. 288, 676 S.E.2d 169, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 142 (2009). Jury decides factual question of modification or exclusion of warranty. - Where the trial court specifically instructed the jury that “an implied warranty can be excluded or modified by course of dealings or course of performance or usage of trade,” the evidence of such, sufficient to create an exception to the rule requiring conspicuous written exclusion of warranties, were questions of fact for the jury to determine. Willis Mining, Inc. v. Noggle, 235 Ga. App. 747, 509 S.E.2d 731, 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 1537 (1998). Exclusionary paragraph of same size and color type as rest of form. - Paragraph written in same size and color type as all other paragraphs on back of form fails completely to comply with O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316 for excluding the warranties implied by law in O.C.G.A. § 11-2-314. Chrysler Corp. v. Wilson Plumbing Co., 132 Ga. App. 435, 208 S.E.2d 321, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1717 (1974). Disclaimer of implied warranty was adequate. - Where the disclaimer was in letters larger than any other type on the form, where significant portions of the disclaimer were capitalized, thus distinguishing them from other language on the form, and where the language was conspicuously set forth, the limitation of the implied warranty of merchantability met the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 11-2316(2). Harris v. Sulcus Computer Corp., 175 Ga. App. 140, 332 S.E.2d 660, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2040 (1985). Roofing material vendor’s disclaimer of warranty, which stated in capitalized letters that the vendor made no warranties, express or implied, including merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, except as expressly stated therein, was sufficient to preclude an action against the vendor for breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness. Steele v. Gold Kist, Inc., 186 Ga. App. 569, 368

Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Cont’d) S.E.2d 196, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 412 (1988). Printed language effectively precluded a claim for breach of implied warranty, where, although the text of the disclaimer was not in bold print, the heading “DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES” was in large capital letters and the entire paragraph was blocked off by an outline. Bennett v. Matt Gay Chevrolet Oldsmobile, Inc., 200 Ga. App. 348, 408 S.E.2d 111, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 1019 (1991). Goods “Sold As Is” Term “sold as is” excludes implied warranties. - The term, “sold as is,” when contained in contract for sale of personalty, means that buyer takes article in its then present state or condition without any implied warranty as to soundness of condition, or suitability for use, or purposes intended. Hutchinson Homes, Inc. v. Guerdon Indus., Inc., 143 Ga. App. 664, 239 S.E.2d 553, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2455 (1977). Express warranty not negated. - Statement in purchase agreement that goods are sold “as is” does not negate express warranty. City Dodge, Inc. v. Gardner, 232 Ga. 766, 208 S.E.2d 794, 1974 Ga. LEXIS 1084 (1974). Automobile invoice containing language, “I accept the above-described car in its present condition . . .” indicated that the car was sold “as is” and operated to exclude any implied warranties; trial court, therefore, erred in not granting partial summary judgment to seller in regard to the claim for breach of implied warranties. Joseph Charles Parrish, Inc. v. Hill, 173 Ga. App. 97, 325 S.E.2d 595, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2736 (1984). Buyer’s Examination of Goods Demand that buyer fully examine goods. - To bring transaction within scope of “refused to examine” of O.C.G.A.

§ 11-2-316(3)(b), it is not sufficient that goods are available for inspection. There must in addition be demand by seller that buyer examine goods fully, which demand puts buyer on notice that the buyer is assuming risk of defects which examination ought to reveal. The language “refused to examine” in that subsection is intended to make clear the necessity for such demand. Austin Lee Corp. v. Cascades Motel, Inc., 123 Ga. App. 642, 182 S.E.2d 173, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1329 (1971). Actions Action for deceit. - Where purchaser did not receive car described and identified in bill of sale, but instead received one-half of described vehicle welded to one-half of another unidentified and unidentifiable vehicle, disclaimer of warranties in bill of sale was not sufficient defense against action for deceit. Bill Spreen Toyota, Inc. v. Jenquin, 163 Ga. App. 855, 294 S.E.2d 533, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2692 (1982). Revival of waived defense. - If debtor waives defense of nonexpressed warranties in plain language, the debtor’s guarantor cannot revive it. Hurst v. Stith Equip. Co., 133 Ga. App. 374, 210 S.E.2d 851, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1076 (1974). Defense of breach of warranty cannot be raised by guarantor of debtor. - Whether or not warranty provisions of Uniform Commercial Code apply to lease of machinery, defense of breach of warranty cannot be raised by a guarantor of debtor. Hurst v. Stith Equip. Co., 133 Ga. App. 374, 210 S.E.2d 851, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1076 (1974). The grant of summary judgment to a defendant with respect to an allegation that equipment is not fit for the purpose intended will be affirmed where the lease/ purchase agreement effectively excludes any implied warranties of merchantability or suitability for a particular purpose, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316. Holcomb v. Commercial Credit Servs. Corp., 180 Ga. App. 451, 349 S.E.2d 523, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 2201 (1986).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 63 Am. Jur. 2d, Products Liability, §§ 794 et seq., 826 et seq. 67A Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 822-852. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:285. C.J.S. 77A C.J.S., Sales, § 263 et seq. U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2316. ALR. Warranties and conditions upon sale of seeds, nursery stock, etc., 16 A.L.R. 859; 32 A.L.R. 1241; 62 A.L.R. 451; 117 A.L.R. 470; 168 A.L.R. 581. Validity and effect of provision in contract of sale which, in effect, guarantees the buyer against decline in prices, 29 A.L.R. 112. Express or implied warranty on sale for accommodation of buyer, 32 A.L.R. 1150; 59 A.L.R. 1541. Express or implied warranty of quality, condition, or fitness of automobile or truck sold by retail dealer, 34 A.L.R. 535; 43 A.L.R. 648. Implied warranty or condition as to quality of timber or lumber, 52 A.L.R. 1536. Validity of provision of contract of sale of personal property negativing implied warranties, 117 A.L.R. 1350. Necessity of buyer’s actual knowledge of disclaimer of warranty of personal property, 160 A.L.R. 357. Law of sales and liability in respect thereof as applied to transactions in selfservice stores, 163 A.L.R. 238. Express warranty as excluding implied warranty of fitness, 164 A.L.R. 1321. What amounts to a “sale by sample” as regards warranties, 12 A.L.R.2d 524. Assignability of warranty of goods and chattels, 17 A.L.R.2d 1196. Seller’s waiver of sales contract provision limiting time within which buyer may object to or return goods or article for defects or failure to comply with warranty or representations, 24 A.L.R.2d 717. Recovery by contractor or artisan, suing for breach of warranty, of damages for loss

of good will occasioned by use in his business of unfit materials, 28 A.L.R.2d 591. Measure and elements of recovery of buyer rescinding sale of domestic animal for seller’s breach of warranty, 35 A.L.R.2d 1273. Implied warranty of fitness on sale of livestock, 53 A.L.R.2d 892. Manufacturer’s or seller’s duty to give warning regarding product as affecting his liability for product-caused injury, 76 A.L.R.2d 9; 53 A.L.R.3d 239. Liability of manufacturer or seller for injury caused by automobile or other vehicle, aircraft, boat, or their parts, supplies, or equipment, 78 A.L.R.2d 460; 81 A.L.R.3d 318; 97 A.L.R.3d 627; 1 A.L.R.4th 411; 3 A.L.R.4th 489; 5 A.L.R.4th 483. Liability of manufacturer or seller for injury caused by industrial, business, or farm machinery, tools, equipment, or materials, 78 A.L.R.2d 594; 2 A.L.R.4th 262. Liability of manufacturer or seller for injury caused by paint, cement, lumber, building supplies, ladders, small tools, and like products, 78 A.L.R.2d 696; 84 A.L.R.3d 877. Liability of manufacturer or seller for injury caused by toys, games, athletic or sports equipment, or like products, 78 A.L.R.2d 738; 95 A.L.R.3d 390. Construction and effect of affirmative provision in contract of sale by which purchaser agrees to take article “as is,” in the condition in which it is, or equivalent term, 24 A.L.R.3d 465. Application of warranty provisions of Uniform Commercial Code to bailments, 48 A.L.R.3d 668. Validity of disclaimer of warranty clauses in sale of new automobile, 54 A.L.R.3d 1217. Construction and effect of UCC § 2316(2) providing that implied warranty disclaimer must be “conspicuous,” 73 A.L.R.3d 248. Products liability: liability for injury or death allegedly caused by defective tires, 81 A.L.R.3d 318. Products liability: liability for injury or death allegedly caused by defect in snowmobile or other recreational-purpose vehicle, 81 A.L.R.3d 394; 66 A.L.R.4th 622.

Products liability: liability for injury or death allegedly caused by defect in mobile home or trailer, 81 A.L.R.3d 421. Liability of manufacturer, seller, or installer for personal injury caused by door glass, 84 A.L.R.3d 877. Measure of damages in action for breach of warranty of title to personal property under UCC § 2-714, 94 A.L.R.3d 583. What constitutes “affirmation of fact” giving rise to express warranty under UCC § 2-313(1)(a), 94 A.L.R.3d 729. Products liability: personal injury or death allegedly caused by defect in aircraft or its parts, supplies, or equipment, 97 A.L.R.3d 627. Products liability: liability of manufacturer or seller for injury or death caused by defect in boat or its parts, supplies, or equipment, 1 A.L.R.4th 411. Products liability: industrial accidents involving conveyor belts or systems, 2 A.L.R.4th 262. Construction and effect of new motor vehicle warranty limiting manufacturer’s liability to repair or replacement of defective parts, 2 A.L.R.4th 576. Products liability: defective vehicular windows, 3 A.L.R.4th 489. Products liability: farm machinery, 4 A.L.R.4th 13. Products liability: elevators, A.L.R.4th 852. Products liability: stud guns, staple guns, or parts thereof, 8 A.L.R.4th 70; 33 A.L.R.4th 1189. Products liability: transformer and other electrical equipment, 10 A.L.R.4th 854. Products liability: cranes and other lifting apparatuses, 13 A.L.R.4th 476. Products liability: cement and concrete, 15 A.L.R.4th 1186. Products liability: tire rims and wheels, 16 A.L.R.4th 137.

Products liability: firefighting equipment, 19 A.L.R.4th 326. Liability of hospital, physician, or other individual medical practitioner for injury or death resulting from blood transfusion, 20 A.L.R.4th 136. Liability of blood supplier or donor for injury or death resulting from blood transfusion, 24 A.L.R.4th 508. Products liability: building and construction lumber, 61 A.L.R.4th 121. Liability for injury incurred in operation of power golf cart, 66 A.L.R.4th 622. Products liability: industrial refrigerator equipment, 72 A.L.R.4th 90. Products liability: scaffolds and scaffolding equipment, 74 A.L.R.4th 904. Products liability: tractors, 75 A.L.R.4th 312. Products liability: bicycles and accessories, 76 A.L.R.4th 117. Products liability: exercise and related equipment, 76 A.L.R.4th 145. Products liability: trampolines and similar devices, 76 A.L.R.4th 171. Products liability: competitive sports equipment, 76 A.L.R.4th 201. Products liability: skiing equipment, 76 A.L.R.4th 256. Products liability: general recreational equipment, 77 A.L.R.4th 1121. Products liability: mechanical amusement rides and devices, 77 A.L.R.4th 1152. Products liability: lubricating products and systems, 80 A.L.R.4th 972. Products liability: mechanical amusement rides and devices, 3 A.L.R.5th 851. Products liability: theatrical equipment and props, 42 A.L.R.5th 699. Liability on implied warranties in sale of used motor vehicle, 47 A.L.R.5th 677. Validity, construction, and application of blood shield statutes, 75 A.L.R.5th 229. Products liability: ladders, 81 A.L.R.5th 245.