Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 440 / Act 174 of 1962
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2314 (2026)

Implied warranty; merchantability, course of dealing, usage of trade.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE


Act 174 of 1962


440.2314 Implied warranty; merchantability, course of dealing, usage of trade.

Sec. 2314.

    (1)  Unless excluded or modified (section 2316), 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 be at least 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 (section 2316) other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1965–2023 · leading case: Gorman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 839 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gorman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 839 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “In sum, plaintiff produced evidence that created only speculation and conjecture that defects disclosed to defendants during the warranty period went unrepaired; therefore, the trial court correctly granted defendants summary disposition on plaintiffs express warranty claim.”
Sullivan Indus., Inc. v. Double Seal Glass Co., 480 N.W.2d 623 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “2315, breach of implied warranty of merchantability pursuant to MCL 440.2314; MSA 19.2314, breach of implied warranty sounding in products liability, and breach of express warranty.”
Neibarger v. Universal Coopertives, Inc., 486 N.W.2d 612 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 4× “[9] MCL 440.2314; MSA 19.2314. [10] MCL 440.2315; MSA 19.”
Heritage Resources, Inc. v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 774 N.W.2d 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “2313; 1 Hawkland, Uniform Commercial Code Series, § 2-313:2, pp.”
Latimer v. William Mueller & Son, Inc., 386 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “In Mallory v Conida Warehouses, Inc, supra, p 32, a case also arising out of the sale of bean seeds from lot 112, this Court held that, since the sale of seeds in question was clearly subject to the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.”
Greene v. a P Prods., Ltd, 475 Mich. 502 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 2× “2947(6)(a) and breach of implied warranty of merchantability under MCL 440.2314(2) (e) with respect to the nonmanufacturing seller, Super 7 Beauty Supply.”
Ambassador Steel Co. v. Ewald Steel Co., 190 N.W.2d 275 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 8× “” (MCLA § 440.2314 [Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19.2314]).”
In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 257 F. Supp. 3d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “¶¶ 3921-3934); for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, see Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2314 (id. ¶¶ 3935-3944); and for unjust enrichment (id.”
In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig., 293 F. Supp. 3d 888 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “§ 26-1-2-314 (1) (same) ; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2314 (1) (same).”
Walker v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Prods., Inc, 552 N.W.2d 679 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “§§ 440.2314, 440.2315; M.S.A. §§ 19.2314, 19.”
Harnden v. Ford Motor Co., 408 F. Supp. 2d 315 (E.D. Mich. 2005). · cites it 7× “Breach of Implied Warranty Plaintiff claims that his RV was subject to an implied warranty of merchantability, pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2314 , 5 and that Defendant Jayco breached that implied warranty because, despite numerous attempts at repair, one of the rear…”
Michels v. Monaco Coach Corp., 298 F. Supp. 2d 642 (E.D. Mich. 2003). · cites it 4× “In general, a seller may exclude or modify implied warranties through the use of a conspicuous writing containing expressions such as “‘as is,’ ‘with all faults’ or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer’s attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes…”
Show all 76 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2314(1) — 13 cases
Neibarger v. Universal Coopertives, Inc., 486 N.W.2d 612 (Mich. 1992). “[9] MCL 440.2314; MSA 19.2314. [10] MCL 440.2315; MSA 19.”
Gorman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 839 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “In sum, plaintiff produced evidence that created only speculation and conjecture that defects disclosed to defendants during the warranty period went unrepaired; therefore, the trial court correctly granted defendants summary disposition on plaintiffs express warranty claim.”
Davis v. Lafontaine Motors, Inc, 719 N.W.2d 890 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
Bevard v. Ajax Mfg. Co., 473 F. Supp. 35 (E.D. Mich. 1979).
Ducharme v. a & S RV Ctr., INC., 321 F. Supp. 2d 843 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2314(2) — 4 cases
Greene v. a P Prods., Ltd, 475 Mich. 502 (Mich. 2006). “2947(6)(a) and breach of implied warranty of merchantability under MCL 440.2314(2) (e) with respect to the nonmanufacturing seller, Super 7 Beauty Supply.”
Latimer v. William Mueller & Son, Inc., 386 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “In Mallory v Conida Warehouses, Inc, supra, p 32, a case also arising out of the sale of bean seeds from lot 112, this Court held that, since the sale of seeds in question was clearly subject to the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.”
Martel v. Duffy-Mott Corp., 166 N.W.2d 541 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).
Fremont Ins. Co. v. Gro-Green Farms Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2314(2)(c) — 2 cases
Gorman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 839 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “In sum, plaintiff produced evidence that created only speculation and conjecture that defects disclosed to defendants during the warranty period went unrepaired; therefore, the trial court correctly granted defendants summary disposition on plaintiffs express warranty claim.”
Bosway Tube & Steel Corp. v. McKay Mach. Co., 237 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2314(2)(e) — 2 cases
Greene v. a P Prods., Ltd, 475 Mich. 502 (Mich. 2006). “2947(6)(a) and breach of implied warranty of merchantability under MCL 440.2314(2) (e) with respect to the nonmanufacturing seller, Super 7 Beauty Supply.”
Cheryce Green v. a P Prods. Ltd (Mich. 2006).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2314(3) — 1 case
Latimer v. William Mueller & Son, Inc., 386 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “In Mallory v Conida Warehouses, Inc, supra, p 32, a case also arising out of the sale of bean seeds from lot 112, this Court held that, since the sale of seeds in question was clearly subject to the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.”
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.