FACTS: Walker owned several pizza parlors that operated under the name of El Fredo Pizza, Inc. He planned to open a new parlor and to purchase a new oven.
DISCUSSION: Walker was an experienced business owner who had very specific needs for a new pizza oven that he could describe to the person he was purchasing the oven from.
FACTS: When a friend suggested that walker purchase an oven from the Roto-Flex Oven Co, Walker contacted an agent from that company and negotiated the purchase of a new oven.
DISCUSSION: The agent may have been an employee of Roto-Flex, or the agent may have been independent from Roto-Flex.
FACTS: Walker made clear the particular purpose for which he was buying the oven to cook pizza and that he was relying on the agents skill and judgment in selecting a suitable oven. Based on the agents suggestion Walker contracted to purchase a custom built Roto-Flex pizza oven special.
DISCUSSION: Walker made the intended purpose of his purchase clear, and told the agent what the purpose was.
PROBLEM: Once the oven was installed walker had nothing but trouble uneven heating which caused the pizza to be improperly cooked when it came out of the oven. Roto-Flex attempted to fix the oven but could not. The pizza place brought action against Roto-Flex for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Should El Fredo be successful.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 2-315, there is an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, if the purpose is articulated. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/solicit.php?http_referer=/ucc/2/2-315.html)
Walker owned El Fredo, which operated several pizza records. The facts show that Walker was very specific in his requirements for a new, custom built Roto-Flex pizza oven. However, the facts also show that Walker purchased the oven using the assistance of an agent. The facts don't show if the agent was independent, or an employee or contractor to Roto-Flex.
The pizza oven did not meet the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, so Walker should be able to sue for this breach of warranty. However, Walker may need to sue the agent, who in turn would have to sue Roto-Flex for indemnity and contribution. If Walker actually purchased the oven directly from Roto-Flex, Walker could sue both the agent and Roto-Flex.
Balch purchased a dog for $800 from newberry, who operated a kennel. Before the sale, Balch informed newberry that he wanted a male dog for breeding purposes, Newberry stated that the dog had the ability to produce pups of pedigree quality. Balch relied on this fact when he purchased the dog was sterile and therefore of no value to Balch for breeding pups. Could Balch demand the return of his 800 after returning the dog?
WHen Balch purchased the dog from the kennel, Balch specified that he wanted a male dog specifically for breeding purposes. Balch purchased the dog from Newberry. Newberry promised that the dog had the ability to breed. Because Balch required that the dog be able to produce offspring and Newberry promised that the dog could, Newberry made an express (albeit probably oral) warranty that the dog was fit for a particular purpose. Newberry's dog did not comply with the warranty, so Balch is entitled to a refund of the $800 he paid for the dog.