Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-314 (2026)

Implied warranty: merchantability; usage of trade

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1). Unless excluded or modified by section 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 at least be 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 by section 2‑316, other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 34 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: Guiggey v. Bombardier, 615 A.2d 1169 (Me. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Guiggey v. Bombardier, 615 A.2d 1169 (Me. 1992). · cites it 2× “§§ 205-A-214 (1989), by breaching the implied warranty of merchantability under 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-314 and violating the provisions of 10 M.”

Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Mountaire Farms Inc., 920 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 2019). “Starr brought claims under Maine law for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, see Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-314, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, see id.”

Suminski v. Maine Appliance Warehouse, Inc., 602 A.2d 1173 (Me. 1992). · cites it 2× “), 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-314 (1964), when it sold Suminski a defective television set for $713.”

Oceanside at Pine Point Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Peachtree Doors, Inc., 659 A.2d 267 (Me. 1995). “The complaint, stating that an “implied term of the Defendant’s contract to provide windows and doors for the condominium *272 building was that the products so provided would be merchantable and fit for the purposes for which they were intended,” plainly asserts a breach of…”

Jolovitz v. Alfa Romeo Distributors of North Am., 2000 ME 174 (Me. 2000). · cites it 2× “1999); and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-314 (1995). Jolovitz also appeals from the court’s denial of his motion to reconsider the entry of summary judgment on additional claims for negligence and punitive damages.”

Stanley v. Schiavi Mobile Homes, Inc., 462 A.2d 1144 (Me. 1983). “See 11 M.R.S.A. §§ 2-314 to —315 (1964). 5 The plaintiff, therefore, could not recover against Schiavi under the breach of implied warranty theory.”

Muehlbauer v. Gen. Motors Corp., 431 F. Supp. 2d 847 (N.D. Ill. 2006). “Under 11 M.R.S. § 2-314(2)(c), a good product must be fit for its ordinary purpose.”

Sebago, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D. Mass. 1998). “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-314. 16 The Maine SJC has not expressly decided whether a commercial plaintiff must allege privity to maintain a breach of warranty claim.”

Am. Aerial Servs., Inc. v. Terex USA, LLC, 39 F. Supp. 3d 95 (D. Me. 2014). · cites it 2× “(5) Implied Warranty of Merchantability Both defendants argue that by inserting a warranty disclaimer into a block of text appearing on the back page of the Data Sheet, Terex properly excluded the implied warranty of merchantability, 11 M.R.S. § 2-314, which states in pertinent…”

Lorfano v. Dura Stone Steps, Inc., 569 A.2d 195 (Me. 1990). “The implied warranty of merchantability requires that a product be “fit for the ordinary purposes’ for which such [products] are purchased.”

Tri-Town Marine, Inc. v. J.C. Milliken Agency, Inc., 924 A.2d 1066 (Me. 2007). “” See 11 M.R.S. § 2-314(2)(c) (2006). The court ordered rescission of the contract between Tri-Town and Hoffman, and required TriTown to return the purchase price of $118,000 to Hoffman in exchange for Hoffman’s return of the vessel to Tri-Town.”

Wimmer v. Down East Props., Inc., 406 A.2d 88 (Me. 1979). “The presiding justice found that defendant Down East was in breach of the implied warranty of workmanship in that a leak around the chimney was the result of poor workmanship or inferior materials.”

Show all 34 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-314(1) — 6 cases

Suminski v. Maine Appliance Warehouse, Inc., 602 A.2d 1173 (Me. 1992). “), 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-314 (1964), when it sold Suminski a defective television set for $713.”

Jolovitz v. Alfa Romeo Distributors of North Am., 2000 ME 174 (Me. 2000). “1999); and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-314 (1995). Jolovitz also appeals from the court’s denial of his motion to reconsider the entry of summary judgment on additional claims for negligence and punitive damages.”

Faulkingham v. Seacoast Subaru, Inc., 577 A.2d 772 (Me. 1990).

Basha v. Cincinnati Incorporation (Me. Super. Ct 2017).

Boutin v. R.E. Drapeau, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2019).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-314(2) — 1 case

Porter v. Pfizer Hosp. Prods. Grp., Inc., 783 F. Supp. 1466 (D. Me. 1992).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-314(2)(a) — 1 case

Sullivan v. Young Bros. & Co. Inc., 893 F. Supp. 1148 (D. Me. 1995).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-314(2)(c) — 5 cases

Muehlbauer v. Gen. Motors Corp., 431 F. Supp. 2d 847 (N.D. Ill. 2006). “Under 11 M.R.S. § 2-314(2)(c), a good product must be fit for its ordinary purpose.”

Guiggey v. Bombardier, 615 A.2d 1169 (Me. 1992). “§§ 205-A-214 (1989), by breaching the implied warranty of merchantability under 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-314 and violating the provisions of 10 M.”

Tri-Town Marine, Inc. v. J.C. Milliken Agency, Inc., 924 A.2d 1066 (Me. 2007). “” See 11 M.R.S. § 2-314(2)(c) (2006). The court ordered rescission of the contract between Tri-Town and Hoffman, and required TriTown to return the purchase price of $118,000 to Hoffman in exchange for Hoffman’s return of the vessel to Tri-Town.”

Porter v. Pfizer Hosp. Prods. Grp., Inc., 783 F. Supp. 1466 (D. Me. 1992).

Basha v. Cincinnati Incorporation (Me. Super. Ct 2017).

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.