Foley v. Dayton Bank & Trust
696 S.W.2d 356 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1985
Facts
Buyers purchased a used truck from a bank, which had repossessed it. The buyers alleged the bank's representative made an express warranty about the engine's excellent condition and that an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose existed. The truck broke down shortly after purchase, and the buyers sought to rescind the transaction.
Issue
Did the trial court err in finding no express warranty was made regarding the truck's engine? Did the trial court err in finding no implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose applied to the sale?
Holding
No, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding no express warranty was made and no implied warranties applied. The bank's statement was an opinion, and it was not a merchant for implied merchantability, nor was the truck purchased for a particular purpose for implied fitness.
Rule
An express warranty requires an affirmation of fact or promise, not merely an opinion. An implied warranty of merchantability applies only if the seller is a merchant of goods of that kind. An implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose requires the buyer to rely on the seller's skill/judgment for a specific, non-general purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.