Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-315 (2026)

Implied warranty: fitness for particular purpose

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is, unless excluded or modified under section 2‑316, an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). · cites it 2× “Code § 26-1-2-315 ; Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-315; Md. Code, Com.”

Dutil v. Burns, 674 A.2d 910 (Me. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 221 (1980) or 11 M.R.S.A § 2-315 (1995). The entry in each case is: Judgment affirmed.”

Doe v. Solvay Pharm., Inc., 350 F. Supp. 2d 257 (D. Me. 2004). · cites it 2× “Count TV alleges a breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-315. Count V alleges a violation of Maine’s strict liability law, 14 *262 M.”

In Re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 613 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D. Me. 2009). “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-315. 47 . Pls.’ Opp’n to Def.”

In Re All Maine Asbestos Litig., 581 F. Supp. 963 (D. Me. 1984). “In their fourth claim for relief defendants allege that the United States, by promulgating specifications requiring the use of asbestos in connection with the construction and repair of U.”

Porter v. Pfizer Hosp. Prods. Grp., Inc., 783 F. Supp. 1466 (D. Me. 1992). · cites it 3× “§ 2-314(2) and fitness for a particular purpose, 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-315, as well as strict liability, 14 M.”

Sullivan v. Young Bros. & Co. Inc., 893 F. Supp. 1148 (D. Me. 1995). · cites it 2× “(2) Goods to be merchantable must at least be such as (a) Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and (c) Are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; ____ Similarly, 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-315 provides that where a seller has reason to…”

Canning v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, 480 F. Supp. 2d 392 (D. Me. 2007). “1990) (emphasis in original); 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-315. 15 Plaintiffs have offered no evidence as to any of these requirements.”

Katahdin Paper Co. v. U & R Sys., Inc., 231 F.R.D. 110 (D. Me. 2005). “§ 2-314; and, 4) Count IV, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose in violation of 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-315. Katahdin requested inter alia: compensatory, incidental, and consequential damages arising from U & R’s breaches of contract, express warranty, and…”

Am. Aerial Servs., Inc. v. Terex USA, LLC, 39 F. Supp. 3d 95 (D. Me. 2014). “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-315. The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is narrower than the implied warranty of merchantability.”

Kobeckis v. Budzko, 225 A.2d 418 (Me. 1967). · cites it 2× “1954, now included within the Uniform Commercial Code under 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-315). Section 15, reads as follows: “Sec.”

Basha v. Cincinnati Incorporation (Me. Super. Ct 2017). · cites it 3× “2d at 197 ; 11 M.R.S. § 2-315. 5 DISCUSSION Defendant asserts it is entitled to summary judgment on six grounds: (1) Plaintiffs injuries were the result of a Nichols's modification to the Press; (2) the modifications were not foreseeable to Defendant at the time the Press was…”

Show all 18 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.