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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2315 (2026)

Implied warranty; fitness for particular purpose.

✓ 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


440.2315 Implied warranty; fitness for particular purpose.

Sec. 2315.

    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 the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2021 · leading case: Heritage Resources, Inc. v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 774 N.W.2d 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
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.”
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). · cites it 2× “Laws § 2-315; Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2315 ; Minn. Stat.”
Grosse Pointe Law Firm, PC v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC, 894 N.W.2d 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “2313 to MCL 440.2315, the MMWA refers to “written warranties” (full or limited) and “implied warranties,” 15 USC 2301(6) and (7) and 15 USC 2303.”
Neibarger v. Universal Coopertives, Inc., 486 N.W.2d 612 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 2× “[10] MCL 440.2315; MSA 19.2315. [11] MCL 440.2313; MSA 19.”
Gorman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 839 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “See MCL 440.2315 (“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…”
Sullivan Indus., Inc. v. Double Seal Glass Co., 480 N.W.2d 623 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Sullivan commenced this action in 1983, seeking recovery against Double Seal under the theories of negligence, breach of implied warranty of fitness pursuant to MCL 440.2315; MSA 19.2315, breach of implied warranty of merchantability pursuant to MCL 440.”
Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Peaker Servs., Inc., 855 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “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,” and MCL 440.2315 provides an implied warranty of fitness that generally attaches to the sale of goods.”
Ambassador Steel Co. v. Ewald Steel Co., 190 N.W.2d 275 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 4× “The implied warranty of merchantability is decidedly different from the implied warranty for a particular purpose that arises under MCLA § 440.2315 (Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19.2315).”
Auto-Owners Ins. v. Chrysler Corp., 341 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “2313 thru MCL 440.2315; MSA 19.2315. Although McGhee, supra, involved a case in which a contractual relationship existed between the plaintiff and defendant, I do not believe that the holding in McGhee, supra, should be limited to only those cases in which the relationship…”
Walker v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Prods., Inc, 552 N.W.2d 679 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 440.2315; M.S.A. § 19.2315. [3] Subsection b permits a state to apply for an exemption from the preemption of subsection a and is not at issue in this case.”
Davis v. Lafontaine Motors, Inc, 719 N.W.2d 890 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “MCL 440.2315. MCL 440.2316 provides, in part: (2) Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any…”
Bevard v. Ajax Mfg. Co., 473 F. Supp. 35 (E.D. Mich. 1979). · cites it 2× “§ 2-315, Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2315. Although one need not be a “merchant” to extend this warranty to the buyer, it can be expressly disclaimed.”
Show all 46 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.