(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 (KRS 355.2-202) 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 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; and
(c) an implied warranty can also be excluded or modified by course of dealing or course of performance or usage of trade; and
(d) with respect to the sale of bovine, porcine, ovine, and equine animals, or poultry there shall be no implied warranty that the animals are free from disease or sickness. This exemption shall not apply when the seller knowingly sells animals which are diseased or sick.
(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 (KRS 355.2-718 and 355.2-719). Effective: July 15, 1980 History: Amended 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 7, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1980. -- Created 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 77, sec. 2-316, effective July 1, 1960.
Notes of Decisions
Smart & Assocs., LLC v. Indep. Liquor (NZ) Ltd., 226 F. Supp. 3d 828 (W.D. Ky. 2016).
· cites it 4× “2013) (discussing assumption of the risk in the context of “as is” clauses under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-316). Indeed, the parties are afforded broad discretion to enter into an agreement that provides for remedies in addition to, or in place of, those available under the statute…”
Cline v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 690 S.W.2d 764 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 3× “The appellant contends that Crab-tree made an implied warranty of merchantability and its purported exclusion is ineffective under KRS 355.2-316. Under KRS 355.2-316, to include a warranty in a writing the language must be conspicuous and contain the term merchantability.”
Gooch v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 40 F. Supp. 2d 863 (W.D. Ky. 1999).
· cites it 3× “” Such language satisfies the requirements of KRS 355.2-316. Thus, the warranty disclaimer found within the Accent label effectively disclaims all other express or implied warranties.”
Peacock v. Damon Corp., 458 F. Supp. 2d 411 (W.D. Ky. 2006).
· cites it 3× “§ 355.2-316 permits sellers to modify the implied warranty of merchantability or the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose via a conspicuous writing.”
Brown Sprinkler Corp. v. Plumbers Supply Co., 265 S.W.3d 237 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Brown contends that the court erred in concluding that Plumbers Supply’s warranty exclusion was “readable,” and thereby automatically “conspicuous” pursuant to the provisions of KRS 355.2-316. KRS 355.2-316(2) provides in relevant part as follows: Subject to subsection (3), to…”
Roberts v. Lanigan Auto Sales, 406 S.W.3d 882 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “Kentucky’s Uniform Commercial Code KRS 355.2-316 seeks to provide a structure for construing both oral representations and written disclaimers within an agreement for the sale of goods.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Mayes, 575 S.W.2d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978).
“The seller may disclaim warranties (KRS 355.2-316), or the seller may limit the remedies available to a buyer for breach of warranty (KRS 355.”
Skilcraft Sheetmetal, Inc. v. Kentucky Mach., Inc., 836 S.W.2d 907 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992).
“KRS 355.2-316(a), Commentary (1983). Anderson interposed the claims asserted in his counterclaim as a defense to payment for the parts ordered to repair the transmission.”
Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Utley, 439 S.W.2d 57 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 2× “The arguments bring into consideration several provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, particularly KRS 355.2-316, relating to exclusion of warranties, and KRS 355.”
Greg Coats Cars, Inc. v. Kasey, 576 S.W.2d 251 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “KRS 355.2-316(2) and (3). The code also provides for the method of exclusion, giving the wording to be used and stating that it must be conspicuous.”
Childers & Venters, Inc. v. Sowards, 460 S.W.2d 343 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970).
“2-315 there was an implied warranty of fitness (the seller knew the buyer’s purpose was to use the truck for hauling coal) unless excluded under KRS 355.2-316. The latter section provides that “to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-316(1) — 1 case
Gooch v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 40 F. Supp. 2d 863 (W.D. Ky. 1999).
“” Such language satisfies the requirements of KRS 355.2-316. Thus, the warranty disclaimer found within the Accent label effectively disclaims all other express or implied warranties.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-316(2) — 8 cases
Peacock v. Damon Corp., 458 F. Supp. 2d 411 (W.D. Ky. 2006).
“§ 355.2-316 permits sellers to modify the implied warranty of merchantability or the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose via a conspicuous writing.”
Cline v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 690 S.W.2d 764 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985).
“The appellant contends that Crab-tree made an implied warranty of merchantability and its purported exclusion is ineffective under KRS 355.2-316. Under KRS 355.2-316, to include a warranty in a writing the language must be conspicuous and contain the term merchantability.”
Brown Sprinkler Corp. v. Plumbers Supply Co., 265 S.W.3d 237 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
“Brown contends that the court erred in concluding that Plumbers Supply’s warranty exclusion was “readable,” and thereby automatically “conspicuous” pursuant to the provisions of KRS 355.2-316. KRS 355.2-316(2) provides in relevant part as follows: Subject to subsection (3), to…”
Gooch v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 40 F. Supp. 2d 863 (W.D. Ky. 1999).
“” Such language satisfies the requirements of KRS 355.2-316. Thus, the warranty disclaimer found within the Accent label effectively disclaims all other express or implied warranties.”
Greg Coats Cars, Inc. v. Kasey, 576 S.W.2d 251 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978).
“KRS 355.2-316(2) and (3). The code also provides for the method of exclusion, giving the wording to be used and stating that it must be conspicuous.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-316(3)(a) — 3 cases
Roberts v. Lanigan Auto Sales, 406 S.W.3d 882 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013).
“Kentucky’s Uniform Commercial Code KRS 355.2-316 seeks to provide a structure for construing both oral representations and written disclaimers within an agreement for the sale of goods.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-316(3)(d) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-316(a) — 1 case
Skilcraft Sheetmetal, Inc. v. Kentucky Mach., Inc., 836 S.W.2d 907 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992).
“KRS 355.2-316(a), Commentary (1983). Anderson interposed the claims asserted in his counterclaim as a defense to payment for the parts ordered to repair the transmission.”
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.