Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-314 (2026)
Implied warranty - Merchantability - Usage of trade
✓ current as of May 2026
- (1) Unless excluded or modified (§ 47-2-316), 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 (§ 47-2-316) other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.
Acts 1963, ch. 81, § 1 (2-314).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1968–2023 · leading case: Wright v. Dow Chem. U.S.A., 845 F. Supp. 503 (M.D. Tenn. 1993).
Wright v. Dow Chem. U.S.A., 845 F. Supp. 503 (M.D. Tenn. 1993). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-314(2)(c) (1992) 3 .”
Sarah Speed v. Wyeth Pharm., Inc., 737 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 2013). “The plaintiffs’ implied-warranty claims under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-314 fare no better because they are entirely premised on a failure-to-warn theory.”
Gentry v. Hershey Co., 687 F. Supp. 2d 711 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). “§ 47-2-315, not the more relevant T.C.A. § 47-2-314 which concerns the implied warranty of merchantability: (1) Unless excluded or modified (§ 47-2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with…”
Baker v. Promark Prods. West, Inc., 692 S.W.2d 844 (Tenn. 1985). “, against a lessor of a product on the theory of breach of the implied warranties of the Uniform Commercial Code, T.C.A. §§ 47-2-314 — 315. Also at issue is whether the lessor and the distributor are strictly liable in tort for the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff.”
Autozone, Inc. v. Glidden Co., 737 F. Supp. 2d 936 (W.D. Tenn. 2010). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-314 (1). A “merchant” includes “a person who deals in goods of the kind .”
Patton v. McHone, 822 S.W.2d 608 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “The Pattons also assert that they should have recovered against Harpeth Toyota and Ford Credit based on their claim that Harpeth Toyota breached its implied warranty of merchantability in Tenn.”
Hollingsworth v. Queen Carpet, Inc., 827 S.W.2d 306 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “§ 47-2-315 and breached an implied warranty of merchantability pursuant to T.C.A. § 47-2-314. Defendants’ answers joined issue on the material allegations of the complaint, and defendant Parker filed a cross claim against defendant Queen for indemnity should it be held liable by…”
Dunkin v. Syntex Labs., Inc., 443 F. Supp. 121 (W.D. Tenn. 1977). “T.C.A. §§ 47-2-314, 47-2-315, and 23-3004.”
Heather Floyd v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 966 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2020). “(on behalf of the national class); (IV) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Tennessee law, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-2-314 and 47-2A-212 et seq.”
Curtis v. Murphy Elevator Co., 407 F. Supp. 940 (E.D. Tenn. 1976). “T.C.A. § 47-2-314. 7 The defendants’ contentions that the elevators are no worse than any other elevators in service and that most of the trouble was due to improper maintenance and failure of T.”
Foley v. Dayton Bank & Trust, 696 S.W.2d 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). “Plaintiffs now assert that there was an implied warranty of merchantability as pro *359 vided in T.C.A. § 47-2-314 which states in part: Implied warranty — Merchantability— Usage of trade.”
Morris v. MacK's Used Cars, 824 S.W.2d 538 (Tenn. 1992). “§ 47-2-313, breach of implied warranty of merchantability under T.C.A. § 47-2-314, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act forbidding unfair or deceptive acts under T.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-314(1) — 2 cases
Gentry v. Hershey Co., 687 F. Supp. 2d 711 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). “§ 47-2-315, not the more relevant T.C.A. § 47-2-314 which concerns the implied warranty of merchantability: (1) Unless excluded or modified (§ 47-2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with…”
Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharm., Inc., 882 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (W.D. Tenn. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-314(2) — 2 cases
Bd. of Directors v. Sw. Petroleum Corp., 757 S.W.2d 669 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).
East Mississippi Elec. Power Ass'n v. Porcelain Prods. Co., 757 F. Supp. 748 (S.D. Miss. 1990).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-314(2)(a) — 1 case
Patton v. McHone, 822 S.W.2d 608 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “The Pattons also assert that they should have recovered against Harpeth Toyota and Ford Credit based on their claim that Harpeth Toyota breached its implied warranty of merchantability in Tenn.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-314(2)(c) — 3 cases
Wright v. Dow Chem. U.S.A., 845 F. Supp. 503 (M.D. Tenn. 1993). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-314(2)(c) (1992) 3 .”
Autozone, Inc. v. Glidden Co., 737 F. Supp. 2d 936 (W.D. Tenn. 2010). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-314 (1). A “merchant” includes “a person who deals in goods of the kind .”
Brown v. Woodbury Auto Grp. LLC (M.D. Tenn. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-314(2)(e) — 1 case
Wright v. Dow Chem. U.S.A., 845 F. Supp. 503 (M.D. Tenn. 1993). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-314(2)(c) (1992) 3 .”
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.