a. What arguments would support Felley’s contention?
Brian Felley purchased a used Ford Taurus from Thomas and Cheryl Singleton for $8,800. The car had one hundred and twenty-six thousand miles on it. After test driving the car, Felley discussed the condition of the car with Thomas Singleton, who informed Felley that the only thing known to be wrong with the car was that it had a noise in the right rear and that a grommet (a connector having to do with a strut) was bad or missing. Thomas told Felley that otherwise the car was in good condition. Nevertheless, Felley soon began experiencing problems with the car. On the second day that he owned the car, Felley noticed a problem with the clutch. Over the next few days, the clutch problem worsened and Felley was unable to shift the gears. Felley presented an invoice to Thomas showing that he paid $942.76 for the removal and repair of the car’s clutch. In addition, the car developed serious brake problems within the first month that Felley owned it. Felley now contends that the Singletons breached their express warranty.
b. What arguments would support the claim by the Singletons that they had not given an express warranty?
c. What is the appropriate outcome? Explain.
It is not required for express warranty creation to use words such as warrant or guarantee or to show the intention to make a warranty, but a mere declaration of the goods price or giving opinion does not create a warranty.
In this case, it is undoubted that Individual P asked the respondents about the mechanical condition of the car and the respondents replied that the car was in good condition. So, this becomes a part of the basis of the bargain.
This representation creates an express warranty.
Individual F's disagreement shows that the considerable amount of Reason A is given for the car; this is the factor that is going to cause the buyer to sensibly depend on the declaration that the automobile is in good condition. This is the reason for the payment of a thousand dollars. Soon after, a problem that seems to be directly to the mechanical conditions, which affects the drivability of the car, is discovered; it is also found that the brake and clutches are not working as well.
In reality, Individual S themself does not know about the defect. So, there is no such intention to misinterpret the truth.
Only experts can identify defects in cars. Individual F had a good chance to examine the car and in all probability could have had an expert to examine it as well.
Individual S is not an expert in the maintenance of cars.
Individual S’s statement is considered true because there is no proof.
Section 2-313 states that the express warranty is made by the seller to the buyer. It is a kind of promise that is related to goods and the basis of negotiation is the part of the express warranty.
In this case, the representation of the car becomes the basis for a bargain by the seller since car is in good mechanical condition.
Individual S is accountable and the statements of Individual S are treated as an express warranty.