Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-313 (2026)
Express warranties by affirmation, promise, description, sample
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows:
- (a) Any 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) Any 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) Any 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 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.
Codes, 1942, § 41A:2-313; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 2-313, eff. 3/31/1968.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2022 · leading case: Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac v. Smith, 523 So. 2d 324 (Miss. 1988).
Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac v. Smith, 523 So. 2d 324 (Miss. 1988). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-313 (1)(a) (1972).”
Doris R. Edwards, Etc., Cross-Appellant v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Cross-Appellees, 512 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1975). “It was further contended that these warranties were a “basis of the bargain,” and were relied on by the deceased in purchasing the tires.”
In Re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., 133 F. Supp. 2d 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-313 comment ¶ 3. 72 .”
George A. MacKenzie v. Chrysler Corp., 607 F.2d 1162 (5th Cir. 1979). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-313 (1972). 2 . See Miss.”
Mrs. Margaret McCullough v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 587 F.2d 754 (5th Cir. 1979). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-314 n. 8 (1972). 12 .”
Williams v. Dow Chem. Co., 255 F. Supp. 2d 219 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “Code § 2313 (2002) (California); Miss.Code § 75-2-313 (1999) (Mississippi).”
Guerdon Indus., Inc. v. Gentry, 531 So. 2d 1202 (Miss. 1988). “The most prominent of these provisions is Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-313 (1972), which specifically addresses express warranties.”
Briscoe's Foodland v. Capital Assocs., 502 So. 2d 619 (Miss. 1986). “I concur that the warranties of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-2-313 through -317 (1972), are not available to Briscoe's Foodland, Inc.”
Tellus Operating Grp., L.L.C. v. R & D Pipe Co., 377 F. Supp. 2d 604 (S.D. Miss. 2005). “” Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-313(l)(b). The plaintiffs have alleged that SEPCO warranted the casing to be P-110 strength in composition and has stated a sufficient claim that a court might grant them relief for breach of this warranty.”
Huff v. Hobgood, 549 So. 2d 951 (Miss. 1989). “A warranty of title may also be express, as provided for in Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-313 : (1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows: (a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis…”
Seahorn Investments, L.L.C. v. Goodman Mfg. Co., 667 F. App'x 452 (5th Cir. 2016). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-313 . Accepting Seahorn’s factual allegations that the HVAC units contained defective parts as true, Seahorn has still failed to state a plausible claim.”
Easley v. Day Motors, Inc., 796 So. 2d 236 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-313 (Rev.2000). There is no question the parts Day sold to Easley were under warranty, yet this does not mean the warranties applied to the older parts Day did not sell to Easley.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-313(1)(a) — 1 case
Luckett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (S.D. Miss. 2021).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-313(l)(b) — 1 case
Tellus Operating Grp., L.L.C. v. R & D Pipe Co., 377 F. Supp. 2d 604 (S.D. Miss. 2005). “” Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-313(l)(b). The plaintiffs have alleged that SEPCO warranted the casing to be P-110 strength in composition and has stated a sufficient claim that a court might grant them relief for breach of this warranty.”
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.