K.S.A. » Chapter 84
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 84-2-318 (2026)

Third party beneficiaries of warranties express or implied

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

84-2-318. Third party beneficiaries of warranties express or implied. A seller's warranty whether express or implied extends to any natural person who may reasonably be expected to use, consume or be affected by the goods and who is injured in person by breach of the warranty. A seller may not exclude or limit the operation of this section.

History: L. 1965, ch. 564, § 52; L. 1967, ch. 519, § 2; July 1.

KANSAS COMMENT, 1996

1. This section is alternative B of section 2-318 of the 1972 official text of the Code. It expands the concept of horizontal privity by extending the warranty protection received by the buyer to any natural person who might reasonably be expected to use, consume, or be affected by the goods and who is injured in person by breach of the warranty. The significance of this section is limited, however. First, even pre-Code case law had abolished both vertical and horizontal privity in cases involving consequential damage to person or property. See Kansas Comment 1983 to this section. Second, the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), K.S.A. 50-623 et seq., has abolished both horizontal and vertical privity in all consumer warranty cases, including cases involving only economic loss. K.S.A. 50-639(b). The KCPA defines "consumer" broadly to include any individual or sole proprietor acting for personal, family, household, business, or agricultural purposes. K.S.A. 50-624(b). Finally, most cases involving personal injury or consequential property damage can be brought under the doctrine of strict liability in tort, to which lack of privity is not a defense.

2. Privity continues to be a requirement when one corporation or organization seeks to recover economic loss suffered as a result of breach of an implied warranty by another corporation or organization. See Professional Lens Plan, Inc. v. Polaris Leasing Corp., 234 K. 742, 675 P.2d 887 (1984) (both direct and consequential economic loss). But see Fullerton Aircraft Sales & Rentals, Inc. v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 842 F.2d 717 (4th Cir. 1988) (applying Kansas law) (permitting breach of warranty claim for economic loss even in absence of privity because of inherent dangerousness of airplane and extensive contacts between buyer and manufacturer). Absence of privity is no barrier in the case of an express warranty, however, as a plaintiff can sue directly the party that made the warranty. See Cantrell v. Amarillo Hardware Co., 226 K. 681, 602 P.2d 1326 (1979).

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Section 2-318 of UCC discussed with respect to implied warranty and strict liability for personal injuries, Allan J. Fanning, 13 K.L.R. 411 (1965).

Section extends sales warranties to the buyer's family and household guests, Norman E. Beal, 16 K.L.R. 285, 287, 290 (1968).

Survey of Kansas commercial law (1965-1969), 18 K.L.R. 388 (1970).

Survey of Kansas tort law (1965-1969), 18 K.L.R. 458, 476 (1970).

Effect of the alternatives adopted in Kansas and other states under this section discussed in "The Bystander's Liberation Front—U.C.C. § 2-318 or Strict Liability," John B. Roesler, 19 K.L.R. 251 to 262 (1971).

"Manufacturer's Strict Liability in Kansas—Coming or Already Here?" Thad E. Nugent, 39 J.B.A.K. 219, 220.

"Beefing Up Product Warranties: A New Dimension In Consumer Protection," Barkley Clark, Michael J. Davis, 23 K.L.R. 567, 574, 596, 603, 606, 613 (1975).

Strict liability in tort as adopted in Kansas, 25 K.L.R. 462, 467, 468, 474 (1977).

"Comparative Negligence Collides With Strict Liability: Will Tort Law Ever Be the Same?" Marla J. Luckert, 19 W.L.J. 76, 82 (1979).

"Comparative Fault and Strict Products Liability in Kansas: Reflections on the Distinction Between Initial Liability and Ultimate Loss Allocation," William Edward Westerbeke and Hal D. Meltzer, 28 K.L.R. 25, 97 (1979).

"Privity of Contract and Economic Losses: 'Watchman, What of the Night?'" Alan T. Blinzler and Stephen M. Fitzgerald, 11 J.K.T.L.A. No. 1, 13, 14 (1987).

"Statutes of Limitation, Statutes of Repose and Continuing Duties under the Kansas Product Liability Act," Steve R. Fabert, 36 W.L.J. 367 (1997).

"Strict Products Liability for Misrepresentation," William E. Westerbeke, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XX, No. 6, 20 (1997).

"A Primer for Handling a Defective Tire Case: The Plaintiff's View," Stephen N. Six, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXVII, No. 5, 10 (2004).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Warranties of check printer do not extend to bank. Citizens State Bank v. Martin, 227 Kan. 580, 589, 609 P.2d 670.

2. Notice requirement of K.S.A. 84-2-607 applicable only where ordinary buyer-seller relationship exists. Carson v. Chevron Chemical Co., 6 Kan. App. 2d 776, 784, 635 P.2d 1248 (1981).

3. Statute not intended to alter common-law rules on actions for breach of warranty; lack of privity is bar to recovery only against one not a "natural person." Owens-Corning Fiberglas v. Sonic Dev. Corp., 546 F. Supp. 533, 541 (1982).

4. Buyer's warranty rights extended to certain persons not buyers of goods. Professional Lens Plan, Inc. v. Polaris Leasing Corp., 234 Kan. 742, 749, 755, 675 P.2d 887 (1984).

5. Plaintiff cannot maintain action on implied warranty for economic loss absent privity with defendant. Wight v. Agristor Leasing, 652 F. Supp. 1000, 1021 (1987).

6. Plaintiff building owner could not circumvent privity requirement for breach of warranty claims. Full Faith Church of Love v. Hoover Treated Wood, 224 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1292 (2002).

7. KCPA broadly waives any privity requirement in all breach of warranty claims. Gonzalez v. Pepsico, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1233, 1243, 1244, 1245 (2007).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1980–2019 · leading case: Gonzalez v. Pepsico, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gonzalez v. Pepsico, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 2007). · cites it 12× “K.S.A. § 84-2-318. 10 . Defendants argue that Stair is not helpful because it involved a claim for property damage to plaintiff’s strawberry fields, not economic loss.”
Prof'l Lens Plan, Inc. v. Polaris Leasing Corp., 675 P.2d 887 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 7× “84-2-318 provides: “A seller’s warranty whether express or implied extends to any natural person who may reasonably be expected to use, consume or be affected by the goods and who is injured in person by breach of the warranty.”
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Sonic Dev. Corp., 546 F. Supp. 533 (D. Kan. 1982). · cites it 3× “We hold that because plaintiff did not buy the air compressors directly from Quincy, but instead bought them from Sonic, an intermediary in the chain of distribution, there is no privity between plaintiff and Quincy, and thus no cause of action against Quincy for breach of an…”
In re Dicamba Herbicides Litig., 359 F. Supp. 3d 711 (E.D. Mo. 2019). “" Kan. Stat. Ann. § 84-2-318 . Defendants therefore argue that Kansas plaintiffs, as non-purchasers of defendants' products who were not injured "in person," cannot maintain claims for breach of any warranty.”
Mcmahon v. Advance Stores Co., Inc., 705 S.E.2d 131 (W. Va. 2010). · cites it 4× “Importantly, the comment references a specific comment of our version of the UCC-K.S.A. 84-2-318. That statute states that a seller's warranty extends to any natural person who may reasonably be expected to use or be affected by the goods and "who is injured in person" by breach…”
Wight v. Agristor Leasing, 652 F. Supp. 1000 (D. Kan. 1987). · cites it 2× “The court cited the fact that the Kansas Legislature had specifically rejected a draft version of K.S.A. § 84-2-318 which would have extend implied warranties to all foreseeable product users.”
Full Faith Church of Love West, Inc. v. Hoover Treated Wood Prods., Inc., 224 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D. Kan. 2002). · cites it 2× “2d at 891-98 ; K.S.A. § 84-2-318; Koss, 25 Kan.App.2d at 208 , 960 P.”
Limestone Farms, Inc. v. Deere & Co., 29 P.3d 457 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “See K.S.A. 84-2-318 which extends express or implied warranties to natural persons who may reasonably be expected to use the goods and who suffer personal, as opposed to economic, injury.”
Fullerton Aircraft Sales & Rentals, Inc. v. Beech Aircraft Corp. Beech Acceptance Corp., Defendants, 842 F.2d 717 (4th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “In granting summary judgment for Beech and BACI, the district court did not address the issue of whether any express warranties by either of these means had been breached. Rather, the district court held that contractual privity was required to support an action for breach of…”
Carson v. Chevron Chem. Co., 635 P.2d 1248 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). “K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 84-2-318 and K.S.A. 50-639(b) have effectively eroded the doctrine of privity in consumer transactions.”
Citizens State Bank v. Martin, 609 P.2d 670 (Kan. 1980). “K.S.A. 84-2-318 extends a seller’s (Deluxe’s) express or implied warranties to any natural person who is in the family or house *590 hold of his buyer (Martin) or who is a guest in his home.”
McGaffin v. MI Windows & Doors, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 2d 744 (D.S.C. 2012). “Under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 84-2-318 , implied warranties extend to “natural persons who may reasonably be expected to use the goods and who suffer personal, as opposed to economic, injury.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.