N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 99B
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-2 (2026)

Seller's opportunity to inspect; privity requirements for warranty claims

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 99B CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No product liability action, except an action for breach of express warranty, shall be commenced or maintained against any seller when the product was acquired and sold by the seller in a sealed container or when the product was acquired and sold by the seller under circumstances in which the seller was afforded no reasonable opportunity to inspect the product in such a manner that would have or should have, in the exercise of reasonable care, revealed the existence of the condition complained of, unless the seller damaged or mishandled the product while in his possession; provided, that the provisions of this section shall not apply if the manufacturer of the product is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State or if such manufacturer has been judicially declared insolvent.

(b) A claimant who is a buyer, as defined in the Uniform Commercial Code, of the product involved, or who is a member or a guest of a member of the family of the buyer, a guest of the buyer, or an employee of the buyer may bring a product liability action directly against the manufacturer of the product involved for breach of implied warranty; and the lack of privity of contract shall not be grounds for the dismissal of such action. (1979, c. 654, s. 1; 1989, c. 420; 1995, c. 522, s. 1.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Morrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 354 S.E.2d 495 (N.C. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Morrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 354 S.E.2d 495 (N.C. 1987). · cites it 59× “The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the shoes purchased "looked to be of excellent quality," but that the soles and heels are merely cast plastic without any type of metal support.”
DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., Inc., 565 S.E.2d 140 (N.C. 2002). · cites it 12× “N.C.G.S. § 99B-2(b); see also Tetterton v.”
Champs Convenience Stores, Inc. v. United Chem. Co., 406 S.E.2d 856 (N.C. 1991). · cites it 20× “N.C.G.S. § 99B-2(a) of the North Carolina Products Liability Act states as follows: No product liability action, except for an action for breach of express warranty, shall be commenced or maintained against any seller when the product was acquired and sold by the seller in a…”
Jones v. GMRI, Inc., 551 S.E.2d 867 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 15× “. . .” (emphasis added). Therefore, we cannot agree with plaintiffs’ argument that the defense does not apply to the case before us because the meatballs were not kept in a sealed container.”
Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 423 S.E.2d 444 (N.C. 1992). · cites it 8× “the defenses provided by N.C.G.S. § 99B-2(a) are available to defendants.”
Sparks v. Oxy-Health, LLC, 134 F. Supp. 3d 961 (E.D.N.C. 2015). · cites it 8× “At summary judgment, - Empire asserted a sealed container defense under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-2, arguing that it received the heaters in sealed containers and was nothing more than a “conduit.”
Mclaurin v. East Jordan Iron Works, Inc., 666 F. Supp. 2d 590 (E.D.N.C. 2009). · cites it 8× “McLaurin’s claims for negligence and breach of implied warranties against it must be dismissed pursuant to North Carolina General Statute Section 99B-2. That section provides, in part: No product liability action, except an action for breach of express warranty, shall be…”
Bernick v. Jurden, 293 S.E.2d 405 (N.C. 1982). · cites it 3× “G.S. § 99B-2(b); 8 1979 Sess. Laws, ch. 654.”
Warzynski v. Empire Comfort Sys., Inc., 401 S.E.2d 801 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 7× “Empire argues that section 400 is a form of strict liability and that it is contrary to the express language of G.S. 99B-2. We disagree. Section 400 is not a form of strict liability because it does not impose on sellers the absolute duty to make products safe.”
Lord v. Customized Consulting Specialty, Inc., 643 S.E.2d 28 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “See North Carolina Products Liability Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-2(b) (2005) (eliminating the privity requirement for an action against manufacturers, but only for breach of warranty actions seeking recovery for personal injury or property damage); Atl.”
Nicholson v. Am. Saf. Util. Corp., 476 S.E.2d 672 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “Regarding an action against a “manufacturer” under the Act, our General Assembly in G.S. § 99B-2(b) has eliminated the privity requirement for employees of the- buyer.”
Travelers Ins. v. Chrysler Corp., 845 F. Supp. 1122 (M.D.N.C. 1994). · cites it 9× “seller when the product was acquired and sold by the seller in a sealed container or when the product was acquired and sold by the seller under circumstances in which the seller was afforded no reasonable opportunity to inspect the product in such a manner that would have or…”
Show all 43 citing cases →
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-2(a) — 20 cases
Morrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 354 S.E.2d 495 (N.C. 1987). “The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the shoes purchased "looked to be of excellent quality," but that the soles and heels are merely cast plastic without any type of metal support.”
Champs Convenience Stores, Inc. v. United Chem. Co., 406 S.E.2d 856 (N.C. 1991). “N.C.G.S. § 99B-2(a) of the North Carolina Products Liability Act states as follows: No product liability action, except for an action for breach of express warranty, shall be commenced or maintained against any seller when the product was acquired and sold by the seller in a…”
Jones v. GMRI, Inc., 551 S.E.2d 867 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001). “. . .” (emphasis added). Therefore, we cannot agree with plaintiffs’ argument that the defense does not apply to the case before us because the meatballs were not kept in a sealed container.”
Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 423 S.E.2d 444 (N.C. 1992). “the defenses provided by N.C.G.S. § 99B-2(a) are available to defendants.”
Warzynski v. Empire Comfort Sys., Inc., 401 S.E.2d 801 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991). “Empire argues that section 400 is a form of strict liability and that it is contrary to the express language of G.S. 99B-2. We disagree. Section 400 is not a form of strict liability because it does not impose on sellers the absolute duty to make products safe.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-2(b) — 21 cases
DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., Inc., 565 S.E.2d 140 (N.C. 2002). “N.C.G.S. § 99B-2(b); see also Tetterton v.”
Bernick v. Jurden, 293 S.E.2d 405 (N.C. 1982). “G.S. § 99B-2(b); 8 1979 Sess. Laws, ch. 654.”
Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 423 S.E.2d 444 (N.C. 1992). “the defenses provided by N.C.G.S. § 99B-2(a) are available to defendants.”
Lord v. Customized Consulting Specialty, Inc., 643 S.E.2d 28 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). “See North Carolina Products Liability Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-2(b) (2005) (eliminating the privity requirement for an action against manufacturers, but only for breach of warranty actions seeking recovery for personal injury or property damage); Atl.”
Nicholson v. Am. Saf. Util. Corp., 476 S.E.2d 672 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). “Regarding an action against a “manufacturer” under the Act, our General Assembly in G.S. § 99B-2(b) has eliminated the privity requirement for employees of the- buyer.”
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.