Law 201 Case Study
Raymond Smith recently bought a new car from a car dealership. The sales contract he signed contained language expressly denying liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car. It also limits the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replace the defective part. Unfortunately one month after purchasing the auto, Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car. I will determine what would be the result if Raymond Smith sued the dealership.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 2, unless omitted or changed, the sale of any goods suggests a warranty by the seller that the goods are of reasonable and average quality. Also that it is fit for the ordinary purposes that the goods are to be used. In this case, because the car dealer has omitted personal injuries caused by the car, from the warranty provided to Raymond, the car dealer would be able to enforce the disclaimer against Raymond Smith. But since Raymond was simply driving the vehicle under ordinary conditions and not driving recklessly, the car dealer personal injury disclaimer would not be enforced against him. Therefore, as the vehicle defect renders it unfit for ordinary use, Raymond will prevail against the dealer for breach of warranty.
The bottom line is that the type of disclaimer given by the car dealer is invalid. The car dealer can be sued for the defect and breach of warranty. What we still do not know is whether the defect was caused by the car dealership or by the manufacturer. If it is cause by the dealer than the dealership would be liable for Raymond’s accident.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 2, unless omitted or changed, the sale of any goods suggests a warranty by the seller that the goods are of reasonable and average quality. Also that it is fit for the ordinary purposes that the goods are to be used. In this case, because the car dealer has omitted personal injuries caused by the car, from the warranty provided to Raymond, the car dealer would be able to enforce the disclaimer against Raymond Smith. But since Raymond was simply driving the vehicle under ordinary conditions and not driving recklessly, the car dealer personal injury disclaimer would not be enforced against him. Therefore, as the vehicle defect renders it unfit for ordinary use, Raymond will prevail against the dealer for breach of warranty.
The bottom line is that the type of disclaimer given by the car dealer is invalid. The car dealer can be sued for the defect and breach of warranty. What we still do not know is whether the defect was caused by the car dealership or by the manufacturer. If it is cause by the dealer than the dealership would be liable for Raymond’s accident.