Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-314 (2026)

Implied warranty; merchantability; usage of trade; sale of specified animals

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section or unless excluded or modified (Section 75-2-316), 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 75-2-316), other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.

(4) With respect to the sale of cattle, hogs and sheep, there shall be no implied warranty that the cattle, hogs and sheep are free from sickness or disease at the time the sale is consummated, conditioned upon reasonable showing by the seller or his agent that all state and federal regulations pertaining to animal health were complied with.

Codes, 1942, § 41A:2-314; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 2-314; Laws, 1976, ch. 385, § 1; Laws, 1981, ch. 430, § 1; Laws, 1998, ch. 513, § 1, eff. 7/1/1998.

Amended by Laws, 2014, ch. 312, HB 96, 2, eff. 7/1/2014.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 48 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2022 · leading case: In Re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., 133 F. Supp. 2d 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., 133 F. Supp. 2d 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-314 . The Mississippi Products Liability Act ("MPLA”) created an additional cause of action in tort for a breach of express warranty, see miss.”

Doris R. Edwards, Etc., Cross-Appellant v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Cross-Appellees, 512 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1975). · cites it 2× “See 1972 Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-314. Michelin and Sears claim that this warranty action also is not permitted by the wrongful death statute.”

In re Carrier IQ, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “Under the laws of each of these states, the implied warranty of merchantability warrants that a purchased good is “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.”

Beck Enter., Inc. v. Hester, 512 So. 2d 672 (Miss. 1987). · cites it 2× “Implied Warranty of Merchantability Theory Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-314 (1972) provides in part: (1) 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.”

Tupelo Auto Sales, Ltd. v. Scott, 844 So. 2d 1167 (Miss. 2003). “Scott seeks relief on state law grounds in his complaint, alleging breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness as codified in Miss.Code Ann. §§ 75-2-314(2)(c) & 75-2-608(1)(a) as well as breach of express warranties found in the Mississippi Motor Vehicle Warranty…”

Mercury Marine v. Clear River Const. Co., 839 So. 2d 508 (Miss. 2003). · cites it 2× “" Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-314 (2000). There is no question as to Mercury's merchant status, or as to whether the motors Mercury sold to Travis were classified as goods sold from Mercury's regular inventory.”

Watson Quality Ford, Inc. v. Casanova, 999 So. 2d 830 (Miss. 2008). “1983) (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-314). [1] This Court has stated: There are five elements which a plaintiff must prove to recover under section 75-2-314:(1) That a "merchant" sold "goods," and he was a merchant with respect to "goods of the kind" involved in the transaction,…”

Hargett v. Midas Intern. Corp., 508 So. 2d 663 (Miss. 1987). · cites it 3× “(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as (a) pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and .”

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 .”

Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac v. Smith, 523 So. 2d 324 (Miss. 1988). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-314 (1) (1972). On appeal, Fitzner assigns error in submission of the implied warranty theory to the jury and offers two reasons in support.”

Fedders Corp. v. Boatright, 493 So. 2d 301 (Miss. 1986). “IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY The pertinent portions of Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-314 (1972) are: § 75-2-314.”

Show all 48 citing cases →

— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-314(1) — 5 cases

Curry v. Sile Distributors & Investarm, S.P.A., 727 F. Supp. 1052 (N.D. Miss. 1990).

Settlemires v. Jones, 736 So. 2d 471 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).

Murray v. Blackwell, 966 So. 2d 901 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

Jacob Hartz Seed Co., Inc. v. Simrall & Simrall, 807 So. 2d 1271 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).

McGinty v. Grand Casinos of Miss., Inc., 245 So. 3d 555 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-314(2) — 2 cases

Mercury Marine v. Clear River Const. Co., 839 So. 2d 508 (Miss. 2003). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-314 (2000). There is no question as to Mercury's merchant status, or as to whether the motors Mercury sold to Travis were classified as goods sold from Mercury's regular inventory.”

Easley v. Day Motors, Inc., 796 So. 2d 236 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-314(2)(c) — 3 cases

Cochran v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 564 F. Supp. 237 (N.D. Miss. 1983).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-314(4) — 1 case

William C. Mitchell, Ltd. v. Brown, 576 N.W.2d 342 (Iowa 1998).

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.