R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-315 (2026)

Implied warranty — Fitness for particular purpose

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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. As to foodstuffs or drinks sold for human consumption in sealed containers, there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose, and such warranty shall extend from the seller and the manufacturer or packer of such goods to the person or persons described in § 6A-2-318.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1965–2016 · leading case: In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 2315 ; R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-315; Tenn. Code § 47-2-315; Tex.”
Young v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 287 A.2d 345 (R.I. 1972). · cites it 8× “1956, §§6A-2-315 and 6A-2-318, 1 the Uniform Commercial Code, so called.”
Oresman v. G. D. Searle & Co., 321 F. Supp. 449 (D.R.I. 1971). · cites it 3× “” The issue before this Court is whether the exception to the general rule of privity declared by the Supreme Court in Finocchiaro v.”
Finocchiaro v. Ward Baking Co., 241 A.2d 619 (R.I. 1968). · cites it 5× “The cited section provides: “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…”
Fiske v. MacGregor, Div. of Brunswick, 464 A.2d 719 (R.I. 1983). “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 6A-2-315, which dealt with the implied warranty of fitness of a food prod *729 uct for human consumption.”
Henry v. John W. Eshelman & Sons, 209 A.2d 46 (R.I. 1965). · cites it 2× “Moreover §§ 6A-2-315 and 6A-2-318 are not applicable to the case at bar.”
Ace Am. Ins. v. Grand Banks Yachts, Ltd., 587 F. Supp. 2d 697 (D. Maryland 2008). “In Finocchiaro , a purchaser of bread sued the manufacturer for a breach of the implied warranty that foodstuffs be "reasonably fit for human consumption," codified at R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-315. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island distinguished that warranty from the general rule…”
Ralston Dry-Wall Co. v. United States Gypsum Co., 740 F. Supp. 926 (D.R.I. 1990). · cites it 2× “An implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose arises under Rhode Island law “[wjhere 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…”
Lariviere v. Dayton Saf. Ladder Co., 525 A.2d 892 (R.I. 1987). “General Laws 1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 6A-2-315 reads in pertinent part: “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…”
Richard v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 243 A.2d 910 (R.I. 1968). · cites it 3× “In his complaint plaintiff alleged in the alternative that his injury was caused by defendant's negligence or breach of its implied warranty under G.L. 1956, § 6A-2-315, as amended, that such bottle of milk would be fit for human consumption.”
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.”
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. It is clear *81 from the record that not only was neither of…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.