Bayliner Marine Corp.
Facts
Before buying a Bayliner 3486 Trophy Convertible, Crow asked Tidewater's salesperson about the boat's maximum speed and was shown Bayliner dealer "prop matrixes" stating that that model had a maximum speed of 30 miles per hour when equipped with different propellers than the boat Crow ultimately purchased. Crow also saw a Bayliner brochure stating that the model "delivers the kind of performance you need to get to the prime offshore fishing grounds." The boat Crow bought included about 2,000 pounds of added equipment and, after delivery, reached only 13 miles per hour initially and generally only 17 miles per hour, with Bayliner later stating that 23 to 25 miles per hour was the boat's maximum speed. Crow claimed the boat's speed made it unsuitable for his offshore fishing use.
Issue
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support findings that Bayliner breached an express warranty and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose based on the boat's failure to achieve 30 miles per hour. More specifically, the court considered whether the prop matrixes or brochure created an express warranty, whether the boat was shown to be unmerchantable, and whether Bayliner knew of a particular speed requirement sufficient to create a fitness warranty.
Rule
Under Code § 8.2-313, an express warranty arises from an affirmation of fact or description that becomes part of the basis of the bargain, but a mere opinion or commendation does not create a warranty. Statements that do not relate to the particular goods purchased, or to goods with substantially similar characteristics, do not amount to an express warranty about those goods. Under Code § 8.2-314, a buyer claiming lack of merchantability must show the applicable trade standard and that the goods would not pass without objection in the trade or are not fit for their ordinary purpose. Under Code § 8.2-315, an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose exists only if the seller has reason to know the buyer's particular purpose and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to furnish suitable goods.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
After delivery, the boat tops out at 31 mph. If Nina sues the manufacturer for breach of express warranty based on the chart, which is the strongest argument for the manufacturer?