(1) Unless excluded or modified (§ 6A-2-316), 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 (§ 6A-2-316), other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.
Notes of Decisions
Olshansky v. Rehrig Int'l, 872 A.2d 282 (R.I. 2005).
· cites it 6× “V Breach of Implied Warranty The plaintiffs’ allegation of breach of implied warranty of merchantability was brought under G.L.1956 § 6A-2-314 of the Uniform Commercial Code.”
Thomas v. Amway Corp., 488 A.2d 716 (R.I. 1985).
· cites it 3× “*719 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 6A-2-314, 2 which discusses the merchantability of goods.”
Mktg. Design Source, Inc. v. Pranda North Am., Inc., 799 A.2d 267 (R.I. 2002).
· cites it 2× “In this case, it was defendant Pran-da that asserted in count 2 of its counterclaim that MDS had breached its implied warranty of merchantability; consequently, Pranda had the burden of proving that the flyers were not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such flyers were…”
Ace Am. Ins. v. Grand Banks Yachts, Ltd., 587 F. Supp. 2d 697 (D. Maryland 2008).
· cites it 2× “”), while Rhode Island has not, see R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-314. “[MJerely because Maryland law is dissimilar to the law of another jurisdiction,” however, “does not render the latter contrary to Maryland public policy and thus unenforceable in our courts.”
Parrillo v. Giroux Co., Inc., 426 A.2d 1313 (R.I. 1981).
““(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.”
Lariviere v. Dayton Saf. Ladder Co., 525 A.2d 892 (R.I. 1987).
“” General Laws 1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 6A-2-314(2)(c). The defendant claims that no evidence was produced to relate the alleged defect in the ladder to a normal person’s ordinary use.”
Dooley v. Parker-Hannifin Corp., 817 F. Supp. 245 (D.R.I. 1993).
· cites it 2× “R.I.Gen.Laws § 6A-2-314 (1992). Other kinds of express and/or implied warranties may be created when the “seller” makes representations relating to the product, see R.”
Bergenstock v. Lemay's G.M.C., Inc., 372 A.2d 69 (R.I. 1977).
“I It should be noted at the outset that plaintiff’s arguments on appeal that defendant breached implied warranties of merchantability, §6A-2-314, or fitness for a particular purpose, §6A-2-315, are not well-taken.”
LePage v. E-One, Inc., 4 F. Supp. 3d 298 (D. Mass. 2014).
“R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-314(l). . Id. § 6A-2-314(2)(c); Lariviere v.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-314(2)(c) — 2 cases
Mktg. Design Source, Inc. v. Pranda North Am., Inc., 799 A.2d 267 (R.I. 2002).
“In this case, it was defendant Pran-da that asserted in count 2 of its counterclaim that MDS had breached its implied warranty of merchantability; consequently, Pranda had the burden of proving that the flyers were not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such flyers were…”
Lariviere v. Dayton Saf. Ladder Co., 525 A.2d 892 (R.I. 1987).
“” General Laws 1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 6A-2-314(2)(c). The defendant claims that no evidence was produced to relate the alleged defect in the ladder to a normal person’s ordinary use.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-314(l) — 1 case
LePage v. E-One, Inc., 4 F. Supp. 3d 298 (D. Mass. 2014).
“R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-314(l). . Id. § 6A-2-314(2)(c); Lariviere v.”
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.