Green Seed Company packaged, labeled, and marketed a quality tomato seed known as “Green’s Pink Shipper” for commercial sale.
| ♥ 0 |
Green Seed Company packaged, labeled, and marketed a quality tomato seed known as “Green’s Pink Shipper” for commercial sale. Brown Seed Store, a retailer, purchased the seed from Green Seed and then sold it to Guy Jones, who was engaged in the business of growing tomato seedlings for sale to commercial tomato growers. Williams purchased the seedlings from Jones and then transplanted and raised them in accordance with accepted farming methods. The plants, however, produced not the promised “Pink Shipper” tomatoes but rather an inferior variety that spoiled in the field. Williams then brought an action against Green Seed for $900, claiming that his crop damage had been caused by Green Seed’s breach of an express warranty. Green Seed argued in defense that its warranty did not extend to remote purchasers and that the company did not receive notice of the claimed breach of warranty. Who will prevail? Why? |
Explanation
In the context of warranty actions being breached, the Uniform Commercial Code and the restatement broadens the applicability of traditional law relating to vertical privity. In this case, Organization G can expect Individual W to suffer an impact because of the quality of the product sold and eventually using it for commercial purposes.
Organization G, being the starting point of the distributive chain, is an essential part of the quality produced. When the organization marked the product as suitable for commercial sale, the warranty is extended to that part of the distribution chain wherein it was purchased and used for commercial purposes.
Sample Response
Individual W is going to win suit in this case, based on the extended concept of privity of contract. Organization G is going to be held liable since they marked the product for commercial purposes.
