Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 355
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-314 (2026)

Implied warranty: merchantability -- Usage of trade

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Unless excluded or modified (KRS 355.2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Under this section the serving for value of food or drink to be consumed either on the premises or elsewhere is a sale.

(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as

(a) pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and

(b) in the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and

(c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and

(d) run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and

(e) are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require; and

(f) conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.

(3) Unless excluded or modified (KRS 355.2-316) other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade. Effective: July 1, 1960 History: Created 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 77, sec. 2-314, effective July 1, 1960.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2022 · leading case: Smart & Assocs., LLC v. Indep. Liquor (NZ) Ltd., 226 F. Supp. 3d 828 (W.D. Ky. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smart & Assocs., LLC v. Indep. Liquor (NZ) Ltd., 226 F. Supp. 3d 828 (W.D. Ky. 2016). · cites it 12× “Implied Warranty of Merchantability The next claim to be considered is Smart Beverage’s claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-314, contained in Count II of the amended complaint.”
Presnell Constr. Managers, Inc. v. EH Constr., LLC, 134 S.W.3d 575 (Ky. 2004). · cites it 2× “This holding by the Court of Appeals is supported by the RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: PRODUCTS LIABILITY § 21 (1998) which provides: For purposes of this Restatement, harm to persons or property includes economic loss if caused by harm to: (a) the plaintiff's person; or (b) the…”
Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Hous. Auth., 132 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2004). · cites it 2× “2-208(1); KRS 355.2-314(3); KRS 355.2-504(b); KRS 355.”
Sarah Speed v. Wyeth Pharm., Inc., 737 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “Nor does the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s evaluation of the fraud and misrepresentation claims in Hassett help the plaintiffs in the present case.”
Compex Intern. Co., Ltd. v. Taylor, 209 S.W.3d 462 (Ky. 2007). · cites it 2× “, KRS 355.2-314 and KRS 355.2-315. We have long observed that determinations as to public policy are a matter for the General Assembly.”
Sims v. Atrium Med. Corp., 349 F. Supp. 3d 628 (W.D. Ky. 2018). “To plead a plausible breach of implied warranty claim in Kentucky, a plaintiff must provide evidence that the seller is a merchant with respect to the goods involved in the sale.”
Riffe v. Black, 548 S.W.2d 175 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 3× “Based upon these findings of fact, the commissioner arrived at the following conclusions of law: (1) Appellants breached the implied warranty of merchantability as provided in KRS 355.2-314 because they did not install the pool in a workmanlike manner using suitable materials.”
Moore v. Zydus Pharm. (USA), Inc., 277 F. Supp. 3d 873 (E.D. Ky. 2017). · cites it 2× “Compare Ky.Rev.Stat. § 355.2-314 with Tenn.Code Ann.”
Falcon Coal Co. v. Clark Equip. Co., 802 S.W.2d 947 (Ky. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Finally, the decision in Herme also predated the adoption of KRS 355.2-314 and 355.2-315. Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts provides in relevant part that “[o]ne who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to…”
McMichael v. Am. Red Cross, 532 S.W.2d 7 (Ky. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 3× “McMichael brought the action to recover for the damages he suffered due to his encounter with this illness based on alternative theories of breach of implied warranty of merchantability and fitness under the Uniform Commercial Code, KRS 355.2-314 and 355.2-315, and of strict…”
Ford Motor Co. v. Mayes, 575 S.W.2d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978). “The only express remedy afforded the buyer under Ford’s warranty was repair or replacement of any parts found to be defective under normal use within the “earliest” of 12 months or 12,000 miles.”
Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Utley, 439 S.W.2d 57 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “The contract in the instant case contained language expressly excluding implied warranties (as is authorized by KRS 355.2-314 and 355.2-315). However, it was on the back of the contract form, with a number of other provisions which substantially filled the back page.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-314(1) — 4 cases
Smart & Assocs., LLC v. Indep. Liquor (NZ) Ltd., 226 F. Supp. 3d 828 (W.D. Ky. 2016). “Implied Warranty of Merchantability The next claim to be considered is Smart Beverage’s claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-314, contained in Count II of the amended complaint.”
Smith v. Gen. Motors Corp., 979 S.W.2d 127 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998).
Frantz, Inc. v. Blue Grass Hams, Inc., 520 S.W.2d 313 (Ky. Ct. App. 1975).
Petrey v. Ethicon, Inc. (E.D. Ky. 2019).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-314(2) — 1 case
Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Utley, 439 S.W.2d 57 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “The contract in the instant case contained language expressly excluding implied warranties (as is authorized by KRS 355.2-314 and 355.2-315). However, it was on the back of the contract form, with a number of other provisions which substantially filled the back page.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-314(2)(a) — 1 case
Smart & Assocs., LLC v. Indep. Liquor (NZ) Ltd., 226 F. Supp. 3d 828 (W.D. Ky. 2016). “Implied Warranty of Merchantability The next claim to be considered is Smart Beverage’s claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-314, contained in Count II of the amended complaint.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-314(3) — 3 cases
Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Hous. Auth., 132 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2004). “2-208(1); KRS 355.2-314(3); KRS 355.2-504(b); KRS 355.”
Smart & Assocs., LLC v. Indep. Liquor (NZ) Ltd., 226 F. Supp. 3d 828 (W.D. Ky. 2016). “Implied Warranty of Merchantability The next claim to be considered is Smart Beverage’s claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-314, contained in Count II of the amended complaint.”
Garvin v. Ethicon, Inc. (W.D. Ky. 2022).
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.