NRS
104.2314 Implied warranty: Merchantability; usage of trade.
1. Unless excluded or modified (NRS 104.2316), 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 (NRS 104.2316) other implied warranties may
arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.
(Added to NRS by 1965,
793)
Notes of Decisions
Vacation Vill., Inc. v. Hitachi Am., Ltd., 874 P.2d 744 (Nev. 1994).
“See NRS 104.2314; NRS 104.2315. Nonetheless, Hitachi asserts that it was not subject to the implied warranties under the UCC because the finance lease between Vacation Village and GECC was a lease and not a sale.”
Forest v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, & Co., 791 F. Supp. 1460 (D. Nev. 1992).
“Implied warranty Under the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), adopted by Nevada and set out at NRS Chapter 104, there are two types of implied warranties: the implied warranty of merchantability (NRS 104.2314; UCC 2-314) and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose…”
Freas v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 320 F. Supp. 3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 3× “See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2314 (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.”
Havas v. Love, 514 P.2d 1187 (Nev. 1973).
“NRS 104.2314(2) (c). If goods purchased pursuant to a contract or tender of delivery of such goods fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer may reject them within a reasonable time after their delivery or tender.”
Underwood v. O-Reilly Auto Parts, Inc. (D. Nev. 2023).
· cites it 4× “1992) (citing NRS §§ 104.2314–2315). Plaintiff does not specify 23 which implied warranty theory she is proceeding under, so the Court will examine both.”
Prescott v. Slide Fire Solutions, LP (D. Nev. 2019).
· cites it 2× “12 Plaintiffs assert that Slide Fire violated NRS 104.2314, which codifies the implied 13 warranty of merchantability in Nevada, and NRS 598.”
Wood v. Winnebago Indus., Inc. (D. Nev. 2022).
· cites it 2× “25 26 1 Specifically, NRS 104.2314, which states that “a warranty that the goods shall be 27 merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.”
Sulligan v. Ford Motor Co. (E.D. Mich. 2023).
“• Nevada – Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2314 (Count 17) Under Nevada law, “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.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2314(1) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2314(2) — 1 case
Havas v. Love, 514 P.2d 1187 (Nev. 1973).
“NRS 104.2314(2) (c). If goods purchased pursuant to a contract or tender of delivery of such goods fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer may reject them within a reasonable time after their delivery or tender.”
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.