Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 11
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-318 (2026)

When lack of privity no defense in action against manufacturer, seller or supplier of goods

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Lack of privity between plaintiff and defendant shall be no defense in any action brought against the manufacturer, seller or supplier of goods for breach of warranty, express or implied, although the plaintiff did not purchase the goods from the defendant, if the plaintiff was a person whom the manufacturer, seller or supplier might reasonably have expected to use, consume or be affected by the goods.   [PL 1973, c. 441, §1 (RPR).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1969, c. 327, §1 (RPR). PL 1973, c. 441, §1 (RPR).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1973–2017 · leading case: Adams v. Buffalo Forge Co., 443 A.2d 932 (Me. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Adams v. Buffalo Forge Co., 443 A.2d 932 (Me. 1982). · cites it 6× “See 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-318 (enacted by P.L.1973, ch.”
Sebago, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D. Mass. 1998). · cites it 4× “Accordingly, the question to be addressed is again whether it is reasonably clear that the Maine SJC, if confronted with the facts of this case, would hold that privity is required to recover economic loss due to the breach of the implied warranty of merchantability,…”
Hurd v. Hurd, 423 A.2d 960 (Me. 1981). · cites it 6× “§ 2-318; and finally abrogated the defense of lack of privity as to all breach of warranty and negligence suits, P.”
Burke v. Hamilton Beach Div., Scovill Mfg. Co., 424 A.2d 145 (Me. 1981). · cites it 3× “362, § 1, to be effective December 31, 1964, 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-318 (1964) provided: A seller's warranty whether express or implied extends to any natural person who is in the family or household of his buyer or who is a guest in his home if it is reasonable to expect that such…”
McNally v. Nicholson Mfg. Co., 313 A.2d 913 (Me. 1973). · cites it 4× “I We sustain the “breach of warranty” gravamen of Count II on the basis of 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-318 as enacted in 1963 and in force until entirely rewritten effective October 1, 1969.”
Dunlap v. Aulson Corp., 90 F.R.D. 647 (D.N.H. 1981). · cites it 3× “In 1963 (effective on December 31, 1964), the Maine Legislature enacted the Uniform Commercial Code, a pertinent section of which, 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-318, abrogated the requirement of “horizontal” privity by permitting suit against a seller of defective goods by a household or…”
Stanley v. Schiavi Mobile Homes, Inc., 462 A.2d 1144 (Me. 1983). “Because lack of privity is no defense in breach of implied warranty actions, see 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-318 (Supp. 1982-1983), the plaintiff could maintain such an action against Marlette.”
Am. Aerial Servs., Inc. v. Terex USA, LLC, 39 F. Supp. 3d 95 (D. Me. 2014). · cites it 2× “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-318. Terex argues that it excluded implied warranties when it sold the Crane to Cropac, and argues that the terms and conditions from that sale also apply to American Aerial pursuant to § 2-318 of the Maine UCC.”
Ouellette v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., 466 A.2d 478 (Me. 1983). “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-318 (1964). P.L.1969, ch.”
Williams v. Ford Motor Co., 342 A.2d 712 (Me. 1975). “8 See also 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-318. Our answer is that the plaintiffs’ claim of negligence against the Ford Motor Company is not barred by the statute of limitations contained in 14 M.”
Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Nishika Ltd., 565 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. 1997). “2-318 (Michie 1991); see also Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 11, § 2-318 (West 1995) (applying to “any action” against certain specified defendants); Mass.”
Inhabitants of City of Saco v. Gen. Elec. Co., 779 F. Supp. 186 (D. Me. 1991). “Plaintiffs base their claim on section 2-318 of Maine’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code, which provides that lack of privity between the plaintiff and defendant is no defense in any action brought against the manufacturer, seller, or supplier of goods for breach of…”
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.