Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 361.150 (2026)

Repealed, 1960

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Catchline at repeal: Implied warranties of quality. History: Repealed 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 77, Art. 10, sec. 10-102, effective July 1, 1960. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2651b-15.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases, 1943–1962 · leading case: Martin v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 192 S.W.2d 201 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Martin v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 192 S.W.2d 201 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946). · cites it 4× “The cited text, as well as the class of opinions re *432 ferred to, were based upon the law as declared before the enactment in 1928 of our Uniform Sales Act, which it is vigorously argued by counsel for appellant prescribed for an implied warranty under certain conditions the…”

Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Belknap Hardware & Mfg. Co., 281 S.W.2d 914 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955). “That section provides: “Where 'the: buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular, purpose - for which the ' goods are required, and it appears that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment (whether he be the grower or manufacturer or…”

Snead v. Waite, 208 S.W.2d 749 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948). · cites it 2× “Subsection (1), section 361.150, KRS, provides as follows: “Where tfie buyer, expressly or by implication, ■makes known to tfie seller tfie particular purpose for which tfie goods are required, and it appears tfiat tfie buyer relies on tfie seller’s skill or judgment (whether he…”

Caplinger Ex Rel. Caplinger v. Werner, 311 S.W.2d 201 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). “There was no contractual relation alleged or shown between Werner, the seller, and appellant, a third party, who had no contractual relation with Thompson, the buyer of the boat.”

Myers v. Land, 235 S.W.2d 988 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). “KRS 361.150, Sec. 15, Uniform Sales Act, provides that “there is no implied warranty or condition as to quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract to sell or a sale, except” in certain circumstances, one of which is that the buyer shall have…”

Dreyer-Whitehead & Goedecke, Inc. v. Land, 216 S.W.2d 413 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948). “Appellee attempted to prove that: he did not know anything about bulldozers; he informed the seller of the use which he intended to make of the one here involved ; the seller assured him the machinery was in good working condition and suitable to perform general excavation work;…”

Halterman v. Louisville Bridge & Iron Co., 254 S.W.2d 493 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953). · cites it 2× “Two apparently conflicting subsections of KRS 361.150, our Kentucky enactment of Section 15 of the Uniform Sales Act, are involved: *494 “(1) Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it…”

Moss v. Yount, 177 S.W.2d 372 (Ky. Ct. App. 1944). · cites it 2× “Section 361.150 of KRS (2651b-15, Carroll’s Kentucky Statutes) legislates with reference to implied warranties, saying in part: “* * * There is no implied warranty or condition as to quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract to sell or á…”

North Am. Fertilizer Co. v. Combs, 212 S.W.2d 526 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948). · cites it 3× “Apparently,, appellees based their suit on the following language of the Uniform Sales Act as written in KRS 361.150: “Subject to the provisions of this chapter and of any statute in that behalf, there is no implied warranty or condition as to quality or fitness for any…”

Rowe v. Oscar Ewing Distrib. Co., 357 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962). “Appellant next contends that under KRS 361.150 of the Uniform Sales Act in effect at the time of the accident, damages are recoverable for breach of warranty including personal injuries and recovery may be had for a breach of an implied warranty of fitness.”

Halterman v. Louisville Bridge & Iron Co., 280 S.W.2d 175 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 3× ““Reasonably fit,” as used in KRS 361.150(1), means something more than barely usable.”

Whayne Supply Co. v. Gregory, 291 S.W.2d 835 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956). “The Uniform Sales Act, KRS 361.150, provides: “Subject to ithe. provisions of this chapter and of any statute in that behalf, there is no implied warranty or condition as to quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract to sell or a sale,…”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 361.150(1) — 2 cases

Halterman v. Louisville Bridge & Iron Co., 280 S.W.2d 175 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955). ““Reasonably fit,” as used in KRS 361.150(1), means something more than barely usable.”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 361.150(2) — 1 case

Halterman v. Louisville Bridge & Iron Co., 280 S.W.2d 175 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955). ““Reasonably fit,” as used in KRS 361.150(1), means something more than barely usable.”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 361.150(3) — 1 case

Wells v. Ray, 253 S.W.2d 590 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952).

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 361.150(4) — 2 cases

Halterman v. Louisville Bridge & Iron Co., 254 S.W.2d 493 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953). “Two apparently conflicting subsections of KRS 361.150, our Kentucky enactment of Section 15 of the Uniform Sales Act, are involved: *494 “(1) Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it…”

Halterman v. Louisville Bridge & Iron Co., 280 S.W.2d 175 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955). ““Reasonably fit,” as used in KRS 361.150(1), means something more than barely usable.”

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.