Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.4113 (2026)

Express warranties of quality

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 116.4113  Express warranties of quality.

      1.  Express warranties made by any seller to a purchaser of a unit, if relied upon by the purchaser, are created as follows:

      (a) Any affirmation of fact or promise that relates to the unit, its use or rights appurtenant thereto, improvements to the common-interest community that would directly benefit the unit or the right to use or have the benefit of facilities not located in the common-interest community creates an express warranty that the unit and related rights and uses will conform to the affirmation or promise;

      (b) Any model or description of the physical characteristics of the common-interest community, including plans and specifications of or for improvements, creates an express warranty that the common-interest community will reasonably conform to the model or description;

      (c) Any description of the quantity or extent of the real estate comprising the common-interest community, including plats or surveys, creates an express warranty that the common-interest community will conform to the description, subject to customary tolerances; and

      (d) A provision that a purchaser may put a unit only to a specified use is an express warranty that the specified use is lawful.

      2.  Neither formal words, such as “warranty” or “guarantee,” nor a specific intention to make a warranty is necessary to create an express warranty of quality, but a statement purporting to be merely an opinion or commendation of the real estate or its value does not create a warranty.

      3.  Any conveyance of a unit transfers to the purchaser all express warranties of quality made by previous sellers.

      4.  A warranty created by this section may be excluded or modified by agreement of the parties.

      (Added to NRS by 1991, 577; A 1993, 2770)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2024 · leading case: Holcomb Condo. Homeowners' Ass'n v. Stewart Venture, LLC, 300 P.3d 124 (Nev. 2013).
Holcomb Condo. Homeowners' Ass'n v. Stewart Venture, LLC, 300 P.3d 124 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 2× “4116 permits parties “to reduce the period of limitation to not less than 2 years” for breach of warranty claims arising under NRS 116.4113 or NRS 116.4114. NRS 116.4116(1).”
Whipple v. C R Bard Inc. (D. Nev. 2024). · cites it 6× “4 NRS Section 116.4113 sets forth the ways in which an express warranty can be created 5 between a seller and a purchaser, and then transferred to subsequent purchasers.”
The Regent at Town Ctr. Homeowners' Ass'n. v. Oxbow Constr., LLC C/W 70296 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 3× “NRS 116.4113 sets forth the ways in which an express warranty can be created between a seller and a purchaser, and then transferred to subsequent purchasers.”
The Regent at Town Ctr. Homeowners' Ass'n. v. Oxbow Constr., LLC C/W 70296 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 3× “NRS 116.4113 sets forth the ways in which an express warranty can be created between a seller and a purchaser, and then transferred to subsequent purchasers.”
High Noon at Arlington Ranch Homeowners Ass'n Vs. Dist. Ct. (d.r. Horton, Inc.), 2017 NV 66 (Nev. 2017). · cites it 2× “However, in the breach of implied warranty of workmanlike quality and breach of express warranties claims, High Noon sought damages for alleged defects and code violations under NRS 116.4113 and NRS 116.4114. While High Noon did not specifically identify NRS .”
High Noon at Arlington Ranch Homeowners Ass'n Vs. Dist. Ct. (d.r. Horton, Inc.), 2017 NV 66 (Nev. 2017). “However, in the breach of implied warranty of workmanlike quality and breach of express warranties claims, High Noon sought damages for alleged defects and code violations under NRS 116.4113 and NRS 116.4114. While High Noon did not specifically identify NRS .”
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.