Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2315 (2026)

Implied warranty: Fitness for particular purpose

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 104.2315 Implied warranty: Fitness for particular purpose. 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.

(Added to NRS by 1965, 793)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Burton v. Artery Co., 367 A.2d 935 (Md. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Burton v. Artery Co., 367 A.2d 935 (Md. 1977). “NRS 104.2315 and 104.2105(1).”); and HPS, Inc.”

Vacation Vill., Inc. v. Hitachi Am., Ltd., 874 P.2d 744 (Nev. 1994). “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). “2314; UCC 2-314) and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (NRS 104.2315; UCC *1470 2-315). Plaintiff alleges only an implied warranty of merchantability in her complaint, as the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is clearly not at issue in…”

Worrell v. Barnes, 484 P.2d 573 (Nev. 1971). “” As we hold that Barnes must be said to have manufactured and sold a “product” so as to bring into operation the doctrine of strict liability, so also must we deem this case to involve “goods” within die purview of the Uniform Commercial Code.”

Mohasco Indus., Inc. v. Anderson Halverson Corp., 520 P.2d 234 (Nev. 1974). “” NRS 104.2315. Buyer reliance is lacking in this case.”

Hi-tech Aggregate, LLC v. Pavestone, LLC, 555 P.3d 1184 (Nev. 2024). · cites it 3× “Relevant here, NRS 104.2315 governs the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.”

Underwood v. O-Reilly Auto Parts, Inc. (D. Nev. 2023). · cites it 2× “24 Beginning with the latter, NRS § 104.2315 provides for an implied warranty for a 25 particular purpose when: (1) the seller has reason to know of a particular purpose and (2) that 1 the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment to furnish a good that is fit for such a…”

Dwane Miller v. Depuy Synthes Sales, Inc. (9th Cir. 2020). “First, DePuy did not warrant any particular purpose of the device to Miller.”

Hernandez v. The Home Depot, Inc. (D. Nev. 2023). “§ 104.2315. In Nevada, “unless there is 18 privity, liability to the consumer must be in tort and not in contract.”

Edwards v. Panda Express, Inc. (D. Nev. 2025). “An implied warranty 25 claim is explained in NRS 104.2315, which states: “Where the seller at the time of contracting has 26 reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying 27 on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or…”

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.