Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 490
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:2-315 (2026)

Implied warranty: fitness for particular purpose

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §490:2-315  Implied warranty:  fitness for particular purpose.  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 the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose. [L 1965, c 208, §2-315; HRS §490:2-315]

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  Tort and Insurance "Reform" in a Common Law Court.  14 UH L. Rev. 55.

 

Case Notes

 

  A genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether plaintiff relied on defendant's expertise in supplying a suitable product.  971 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (2013).

  Considering the physical appearance of the disclaimer, the sophistication of the parties, and the circumstances of the negotiation and signing, the court declined to find that defendant disclaimed the implied warranty of fitness.  971 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (2013).

  Where product is defective, even when seller does not detect defect, seller is liable under implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose.  66 H. 237, 659 P.2d 734.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2020–2025 · leading case: Constr. Servs. Pac., LLC v. Mule-Hide Prods. Co., Inc. (D. Haw. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Constr. Servs. Pac., LLC v. Mule-Hide Prods. Co., Inc. (D. Haw. 2025). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a plausible claim for breach of express warranty pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:2-313 . Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count III for Breach of Express Warranty pursuant to Haw.”
Evans v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. (D. Haw. 2020). “2d at 744 (quoting Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:2-315 cmt. 1). Therefore, to adequately allege a claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness, Evans must allege that: “(1) [Evans] desired a product for a particular purpose, (2) [Gilead] had reason to know 20The Court notes that…”
ABP Pearl Highlands LLC v. Tigo Energy, Inc. (D. Haw. 2025). “Warranty Claims (Counts IV, V, and VI) Plaintiff also brings warranty claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 490:2- 314 (Count IV), breach of the implied warranty for fitness for particular purpose under HRS § 490:2-315…”
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.