Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-315 (2026)
Implied warranty - Fitness for particular purpose - Exception for certain livestock
✓ current as of May 2026
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. With respect to the sale of cattle, hogs, sheep, and horses, there shall be no implied warranty that the cattle, hogs, sheep, and horses are free from disease.
Acts 1963, ch. 81, § 1 (2-315); 1980, ch. 723, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case: In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “Laws § 6A-2-315; Tenn. Code § 47-2-315; Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.”
Autozone, Inc. v. Glidden Co., 737 F. Supp. 2d 936 (W.D. Tenn. 2010). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-315 . To create a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose under Ten *950 nessee law, two elements must exist: (1) the seller must have reason to know the buyer’s purpose, and (2) the seller must know the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or…”
Smith v. Pfizer Inc., 688 F. Supp. 2d 735 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-315 (requiring that the seller know that “the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods”).”
Bill Brown Constr. Co. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 818 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. 1991). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-315 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 .”
Foley v. Dayton Bank & Trust, 696 S.W.2d 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). “The complaint further avers that the bank knew plaintiffs were to use the vehicle for a particular purpose, that there was an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose as provided by T.C.A. § 47-2-315, and that this warranty was breached.”
Thomas v. Ashley (In Re Ashley), 5 B.R. 262 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1980). “The Court is further of the opinion and accordingly finds that the defendant was guilty of breach of warranties provided by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 47-2-313, Section 47-2-314 and Section 47-2-315 and accordingly that the application of the plaintiff to rescind the sale…”
Harwell v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 803 F. Supp. 1287 (M.D. Tenn. 1992). “— 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…”
Ford Motor Co. v. Taylor, 446 S.W.2d 521 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969). “]” Section 47-2-315 does not apply to the present case for the reason that the preponderance of the evidence shows that plaintiffs relied principally upon the reputation and advertisements of Ford and did not particularly rely upon any judgment of Passons who had recently…”
Gentry v. Hershey Co., 687 F. Supp. 2d 711 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). “]” However, Lee’s Home Center dealt with T.C.A. § 47-2-315, not the more relevant T.”
Hollingsworth v. Queen Carpet, Inc., 827 S.W.2d 306 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “Plaintiff also alleges that defendants breached an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose pursuant to T.C.A. § 47-2-315 and breached an implied warranty of merchantability pursuant to T.”
Fiddler's Inn, Inc. v. Andrews Distrib. Co., 612 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980). “§ 47-2-314 and/or the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose created by T.C.A. § 47-2-315? 2) Was the granting of Carrier’s motion to dismiss error? Because this appeal is from a judgment of the Chancellor sitting without a jury, we hear this case de novo upon the…”
Motley v. Fluid Power of Memphis, Inc., 640 S.W.2d 222 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982). “T.C.A. § 47-2-315; Fiddler’s Inn, Inc. 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.