Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-316
Exclusion or modification of warranties
- (1) Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to negate or limit warranty shall be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but subject to the provisions of this chapter on parol or extrinsic evidence (§ 47-2-202) negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable.
- (2) Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that "There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof."
- (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2):
- (a) unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like "as is," "with all faults" or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty; and
- (b) when the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the goods or the sample or model as fully as he desired or has refused to examine the goods there is no implied warranty with regard to defects which an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to him; and
- (c) an implied warranty can also be excluded or modified by course of dealing or course of performance or usage of trade.
- (4) Remedies for breach of warranty can be limited in accordance with the provisions of this chapter on liquidation or limitation of damages and on contractual modification of remedy (§§ 47-2-718 and 47-2-719).
- (5) The implied warranties of merchantability and fitness shall not be applicable to a contract for the sale, procurement, processing, distribution or use of human tissues (such as corneas, bones, or organs), whole blood, plasma, blood products, or blood derivatives. Such human tissues, whole blood, plasma, blood products, or blood derivatives shall not be considered commodities subject to sale or barter, and the transplanting, injection, transfusion or other transfer of such substances into the human body shall be considered a medical service.
Acts 1963, ch. 81, § 1 (2-316); 1967, ch. 206, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2023 · leading case: Ganzevoort v. Russell
Ganzevoort v. Russell (1997)
“) imposes an obligation of good faith in the performance of every contract which may not be disclaimed, and that disclaimers permitted by Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-316 do not defeat separate causes of action under the Consumer Protection Act.”
Jones v. Methodist Healthcare (2001)
“Plaintiffs argument that the personal injury limitations period, rather than the products liability statute of repose, should apply is premised upon a third statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-316 (5), which reads: The implied warranties of merchantability and fitness shall not be…”
Morris v. MacK's Used Cars (1992)
“The invocation of one power or remedy herein shall not be construed as excluding or prohibiting the use of any other available remedy- A seller may disclaim all implied warranties pursuant to T.C.A. § 47-2-316, which provides in pertinent part, Exclusion or modification of…”
Ford Motor Company v. Moulton (1974)
“Respondents insist that even if the disclaimers were drawn in accordance with the provisions of T.C.A. 47-2-316 they are, nevertheless, invalid because they violate T.”
Patton v. McHone (1991)
“As with other transactions, Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-316 (1976) permits dealers to limit or disclaim this warranty.”
Zichichi v. Middlesex Memorial Hospital (1987)
“Indeed, had the legislature intended to limit § 19a-280 to Uniform Commercial Code transactions, it could eas *407 ily have included that statute as a subsection of General Statutes § 42a-2-316.”
Board of Directors v. Southwestern Petroleum Corp. (1988)
“M SWEPCO argues, however, that r« ther the express warranty that induced^® Board of Education to enter into the tract nor the implied warranty of fifJjfijaH for a particular purpose apply here beq|55! *674 they were excluded as permitted by Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-2-316,…”
Wright v. Dow Chemical U.S.A. (1993)
“Southern Mill argues that pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 47-2-316(2), 5 its product labels explicitly and conspicuously disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability.”
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation (2016)
“Laws § 6A-2-316(2); Tenn. Code § 47-2-316(2); Tex. Bus. & Com.”
Curtis v. Murphy Elevator Company (1976)
“” In the opinion of the Court this is not an adequate disclaimer under T.C.A. § 47-2-316. II. SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW At the conclusion of the Memorandum delivered from the bench, the parties were advised that the question of the amount of damages…”
Perryman v. Peterbilt of Knoxville, Inc. (1985)
“” T.C.A. § 47-2-316, relating to the exclusion or modification of warranties under the UCC, as pertinent here, provides: “(2) Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and…”
Mitchell v. White Motor Credit Corp. (1986)
“T.C.A. § 47-2-313 comment 1 (1979). Courts will refuse to give effect to unbar-gained for language of a disclaimer which is inconsistent with the language of an express warranty.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-316(1) — 1 case
Mitchell v. White Motor Credit Corp. (1986)
“T.C.A. § 47-2-313 comment 1 (1979). Courts will refuse to give effect to unbar-gained for language of a disclaimer which is inconsistent with the language of an express warranty.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-316(2) — 8 cases
Wright v. Dow Chemical U.S.A. (1993)
“Southern Mill argues that pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 47-2-316(2), 5 its product labels explicitly and conspicuously disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability.”
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation (2016)
“Laws § 6A-2-316(2); Tenn. Code § 47-2-316(2); Tex. Bus. & Com.”
Ford Motor Company v. Moulton (1974)
“Respondents insist that even if the disclaimers were drawn in accordance with the provisions of T.C.A. 47-2-316 they are, nevertheless, invalid because they violate T.”
Mitchell v. White Motor Credit Corp. (1986)
“T.C.A. § 47-2-313 comment 1 (1979). Courts will refuse to give effect to unbar-gained for language of a disclaimer which is inconsistent with the language of an express warranty.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-316(2)(3) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-316(3) — 1 case
Board of Directors v. Southwestern Petroleum Corp. (1988)
“M SWEPCO argues, however, that r« ther the express warranty that induced^® Board of Education to enter into the tract nor the implied warranty of fifJjfijaH for a particular purpose apply here beq|55! *674 they were excluded as permitted by Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-2-316,…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-316(3)(a) — 6 cases
Patton v. McHone (1991)
“As with other transactions, Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-2-316 (1976) permits dealers to limit or disclaim this warranty.”
Morris v. MacK's Used Cars (1992)
“The invocation of one power or remedy herein shall not be construed as excluding or prohibiting the use of any other available remedy- A seller may disclaim all implied warranties pursuant to T.C.A. § 47-2-316, which provides in pertinent part, Exclusion or modification of…”
Board of Directors v. Southwestern Petroleum Corp. (1988)
“M SWEPCO argues, however, that r« ther the express warranty that induced^® Board of Education to enter into the tract nor the implied warranty of fifJjfijaH for a particular purpose apply here beq|55! *674 they were excluded as permitted by Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-2-316,…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-316(3)(b) — 2 cases
Cardwell v. Hackett (1978)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-316(5) — 6 cases
Jones v. Methodist Healthcare (2001)
“Plaintiffs argument that the personal injury limitations period, rather than the products liability statute of repose, should apply is premised upon a third statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-316 (5), which reads: The implied warranties of merchantability and fitness shall not be…”
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.