Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 402.313 (2026)
Express warranties by affirmation, promise, description, sample
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
402.313(1)(a)(a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise.
402.313(1)(b)(b) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description.
402.313(1)(c)(c) Any sample or model which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the whole of the goods shall conform to the sample or model.
402.313(2)(2) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as “warrant” or “guarantee” or that the seller have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller’s opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty.
402.313 AnnotationDiscussing express warranties. Ewers v. Eisenzopf, 88 Wis. 2d 482, 276 N.W.2d 802 (1979).
402.313 AnnotationNothing in this section exempts promises to repair and replace defective parts from the definition of express warranty. That makes sense because a promise to repair and replace does not change the character of a warranty but rather the remedy available to the consumer. Most motor vehicle warranties limit a buyer’s remedy to repair or replacement. Bryant v. BMW of North America LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1178 (2022).
402.313 AnnotationStrict Liability of the Bailor, Lessor and Licensor. Wiseman. 57 MLR 111 (1973).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Ewers v. Eisenzopf, 276 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. 1979).
Ewers v. Eisenzopf, 276 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. 1979). “Whether the seller's statement that certain goods were "suitable for salt water aquariums, if they were rinsed" constitutes an express warranty under sec. 402.313, Stats.? 2. Whether there is an implied warranty: fitness for a particular purpose pursuant to sec.”
Grams v. Milk Prods., Inc., 2005 WI 112 (Wis. 2005). “See also Wis. Stat. §§ 402.313 (express warranties), 402.”
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 388 N.W.2d 584 (Wis. 1986). “It held that, under the facts, Phillips had created an express warranty for a specified quality of steel in conformity with sec. 402.313, Stats. 3 (Chapter *26 402, Stats.”
Hocking v. City of Dodgeville, 2010 WI 59 (Wis. 2010). “89(4)(b) is not drafted to function like equitable estoppel, and they assert that they are not claiming equitable estoppel. Nonetheless, they argue that they satisfy the requirements of an equitable estoppel claim.”
Hughes v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 542 N.W.2d 148 (Wis. 1996). “See Wis. Stat. §§ 402.313 ; 402.602; 402.608.”
Heather Floyd v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 966 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2020). “(on behalf of the Wisconsin subclass); (VII) breach of implied warranties under Wisconsin law, Wis. Stat. Ann. § 402.314 (on behalf of the Wisconsin subclass); (VIII) breach of express warranties under Wisconsin law, Wis.”
Forst v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 602 F. Supp. 2d 960 (E.D. Wis. 2009). “313, “any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to that affirmation or promise.”
Manitowoc Marine Grp., LLC v. Ameron Int'l Corp., 424 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (E.D. Wis. 2006). “Wis. Stat. § 402.313 (1). Ameron contends that any express warranty it made ran only to VMS, not Manitowoc, and thus Manitowoc has no remedy against it.”
Lamont v. Winnebago Indus., Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 806 (E.D. Wis. 2008). “See Wis. Stat. § 402.313 (1). Where, for example, the seller warrants his eggs to be Extra Large, but delivers Medium, the buyer’s damages would be the difference between the value of Extra large and Medium eggs at the time and place of delivery.”
In re Hardieplank Fiber Cement Siding Litig., 284 F. Supp. 3d 918 (D. Me. 2018). “See Wis. Stat. § 402.313 (1)(a) (providing that an express warranty is created by an affirmation "made by the seller to the buyer"); Shoemaker v.”
Twin Disc, Inc. v. Big Bud Tractor, Inc., 582 F. Supp. 208 (E.D. Wis. 1984). “, Wis.Stat. § 402.313 (1981); warranty disclaimers, e.”
Harold L. Bushendorf v. Freightliner Corp., 13 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 1994). “It hardly seems likely that the Wisconsin legislature would for the sake of purchasers of “lemons” throw out the whole law of agency, especially when the *1027 purchaser can always sue the dealer, not under the lemon law which is inapplicable to dealers but under the Uniform…”
— Wis. Stat. § 402.313(1) — 2 cases
Ewers v. Eisenzopf, 276 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. 1979). “Whether the seller's statement that certain goods were "suitable for salt water aquariums, if they were rinsed" constitutes an express warranty under sec. 402.313, Stats.? 2. Whether there is an implied warranty: fitness for a particular purpose pursuant to sec.”
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 388 N.W.2d 584 (Wis. 1986). “It held that, under the facts, Phillips had created an express warranty for a specified quality of steel in conformity with sec. 402.313, Stats. 3 (Chapter *26 402, Stats.”
— Wis. Stat. § 402.313(1)(a) — 2 cases
Woodward Commc'ns, Inc. v. Shockley Commc'ns Corp., 2001 WI App 30 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).
Oasis Irrigation, Inc. v. Bruchs Farms, Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wis. Stat. § 402.313(2) — 1 case
Manitowoc Marine Grp., LLC v. Ameron Int'l Corp., 424 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (E.D. Wis. 2006). “Wis. Stat. § 402.313 (1). Ameron contends that any express warranty it made ran only to VMS, not Manitowoc, and thus Manitowoc has no remedy against it.”
— Wis. Stat. § 402.313(l)(a) — 2 cases
Hocking v. City of Dodgeville, 2010 WI 59 (Wis. 2010). “89(4)(b) is not drafted to function like equitable estoppel, and they assert that they are not claiming equitable estoppel. Nonetheless, they argue that they satisfy the requirements of an equitable estoppel claim.”
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 388 N.W.2d 584 (Wis. 1986). “It held that, under the facts, Phillips had created an express warranty for a specified quality of steel in conformity with sec. 402.313, Stats. 3 (Chapter *26 402, Stats.”
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.