(1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows:
(a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to
the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty
that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise.
(b) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates
an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description.
(c) Any sample or model which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express
warranty that the whole of the goods shall conform to the sample or model.
(2) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal
words such as “warrant” or “guarantee” or that he or she have a specific intention
to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement
purporting to be merely the seller’s opinion or commendation of the goods does not
create a warranty.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2021 · leading case:
Thomas v. Amway Corp., 488 A.2d 716 (R.I. 1985).
Thomas v. Amway Corp., 488 A.2d 716 (R.I. 1985).
· cites it 4× “II Breach of an Express Warranty General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 6A-2-313 sets forth the necessary requisites of proof in order to prevail on a claim for a breach of an express warranty by affirmation or promise.”
Ralston Dry-Wall Co. v. United States Gypsum Co., 740 F. Supp. 926 (D.R.I. 1990).
· cites it 8× “The breach of warranty claim arises under Chapter two of the Uniform Commercial Code (Sales), as codified in R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-313 (1985). In the case sub judice, it is undisputed that Ralston never in fact purchased any goods from USG.”
Bergenstock v. Lemay's G.M.C., Inc., 372 A.2d 69 (R.I. 1977).
· cites it 2× “We shall therefore presume, without deciding the merits of the issue, the existence of an express warranty created either by “affirmation of fact,” §6A-2-313(l)(a), or by “description of the goods,” §6A-2-313(l)(b).”
Dooley v. Parker-Hannifin Corp., 817 F. Supp. 245 (D.R.I. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Other kinds of express and/or implied warranties may be created when the “seller” makes representations relating to the product, see R.I.Gen.Laws § 6A-2-313 (1992), and/or when the “seller” has reason to know that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill and judgment to…”
Strauss v. West, 216 A.2d 366 (R.I. 1966).
“1956, §§6A-2-313, 6A-2-513 and 6A-2-601. These sections set forth the conditions on which a warranty is established, the buyer’s right to inspect -and his right to- reject for breach of warranty, respectively.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-313(2) — 1 case
Ralston Dry-Wall Co. v. United States Gypsum Co., 740 F. Supp. 926 (D.R.I. 1990).
“The breach of warranty claim arises under Chapter two of the Uniform Commercial Code (Sales), as codified in R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-313 (1985). In the case sub judice, it is undisputed that Ralston never in fact purchased any goods from USG.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-313(a) — 1 case
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-313(l)(a) — 2 cases
Ralston Dry-Wall Co. v. United States Gypsum Co., 740 F. Supp. 926 (D.R.I. 1990).
“The breach of warranty claim arises under Chapter two of the Uniform Commercial Code (Sales), as codified in R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-313 (1985). In the case sub judice, it is undisputed that Ralston never in fact purchased any goods from USG.”
Bergenstock v. Lemay's G.M.C., Inc., 372 A.2d 69 (R.I. 1977).
“We shall therefore presume, without deciding the merits of the issue, the existence of an express warranty created either by “affirmation of fact,” §6A-2-313(l)(a), or by “description of the goods,” §6A-2-313(l)(b).”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-313(l)(b) — 1 case
Bergenstock v. Lemay's G.M.C., Inc., 372 A.2d 69 (R.I. 1977).
“We shall therefore presume, without deciding the merits of the issue, the existence of an express warranty created either by “affirmation of fact,” §6A-2-313(l)(a), or by “description of the goods,” §6A-2-313(l)(b).”
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.