UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
Act 174 of 1962
440.2313 Creation of express warranties by seller.
Sec. 2313.
(1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows:
(a) An affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise.
(b) A description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description.
(c) A sample or model which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the whole of the goods shall conform to the sample or model.
(2) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as "warrant" or "guarantee" or that he or she have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty, except as provided in the art multiples sales act and Act No. 121 of the Public Acts of 1970, being sections 442.321 to 442.325 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1987, Act 53, Eff. Dec. 9, 1987
Notes of Decisions
Heritage Resources, Inc. v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 774 N.W.2d 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 16× “The creation of express warranties under the UCC is governed by MCL 440.2313, which provides in relevant part: (1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows: (a) An affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and…”
Grosse Pointe Law Firm, PC v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC, 894 N.W.2d 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 14× “Broader than the UCC’s definition of “express warranty,” the MMWA’s definition of “written warranty” encompasses: (A) any written affirmation of fact or written promise made in connection with the sale of a consumer product by a supplier to a buyer which relates to the nature of…”
Dow Corning Corp. v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d 604 (E.D. Mich. 2011).
· cites it 8× “The creation of express warranties under Michigan’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code is governed by Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2313 , which provides in relevant part: (1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows: (a) An affirmation of fact or promise made by the…”
Harnden v. Ford Motor Co., 408 F. Supp. 2d 315 (E.D. Mich. 2005).
· cites it 7× “Defendant argues that Plaintiffs breach of express warranty claims should be dismissed because (1) Jayco’s limited express warranty does not state an affirmation of fact or a promise and thus does not fall within Michigan’s statutory definition of an express warranty, Mich.…”
Davis v. Lafontaine Motors, Inc, 719 N.W.2d 890 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “EXPRESS WARRANTIES In the trial court, plaintiffs contended that because LaFontaine represented that the sale included a manufacturer’s warranty, this representation was an express warranty under MCL 440.2313 that cannot be disclaimed. MCL 440.”
Sherman v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc, 649 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
“2314; (2) breach of express warranty under the UCC, MCL 440.2313; (3) negligence; (4) design defect; (5) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 USC 2301 et seq.”
Latimer v. William Mueller & Son, Inc., 386 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “” MCL 440.2313(1); MSA 19.2313(1). In subsection (2), the code further provides: "It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as 'warrant’ or 'guarantee’ or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an…”
Thorn v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc., 81 F. Supp. 3d 619 (W.D. Mich. 2015).
· cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2313 (l)(a). A seller may disclaim implied warranties under Michigan law as long as the disclaimer is conspicuous.”
Bouverette v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 628 N.W.2d 86 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
“iii Defendant argues that plaintiffs express warranty claim fails because plaintiff did not establish privity of contract, as required under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), MCL 440.2313 and 440.2318. Plaintiff contends that the ucc is inapplicable in a personal injury action.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2313(1) — 10 cases
Grosse Pointe Law Firm, PC v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC, 894 N.W.2d 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“Broader than the UCC’s definition of “express warranty,” the MMWA’s definition of “written warranty” encompasses: (A) any written affirmation of fact or written promise made in connection with the sale of a consumer product by a supplier to a buyer which relates to the nature of…”
Latimer v. William Mueller & Son, Inc., 386 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“” MCL 440.2313(1); MSA 19.2313(1). In subsection (2), the code further provides: "It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as 'warrant’ or 'guarantee’ or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2313(1)(a) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2313(1)(b) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2313(2) — 2 cases
Latimer v. William Mueller & Son, Inc., 386 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“” MCL 440.2313(1); MSA 19.2313(1). In subsection (2), the code further provides: "It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as 'warrant’ or 'guarantee’ or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2313(l)(a) — 2 cases
Grosse Pointe Law Firm, PC v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC, 894 N.W.2d 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“Broader than the UCC’s definition of “express warranty,” the MMWA’s definition of “written warranty” encompasses: (A) any written affirmation of fact or written promise made in connection with the sale of a consumer product by a supplier to a buyer which relates to the nature of…”
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.