Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Sec. 42a-2A-506. Disclaimer or modification of warranty. (a) Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to disclaim or modify an express warranty must be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other. However, subject to section 42a-2A-202, words or conduct disclaiming or modifying an express warranty are ineffective to the extent that such construction is unreasonable.
(b) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, to disclaim or modify an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness, or any part of either implied warranty, the following rules apply:
(1) The language must be in a record and be conspicuous.
(2) In other than a consumer lease contract, the language is sufficient if:
(A) In the case of an implied warranty of merchantability, it mentions merchantability; and
(B) In the case of an implied warranty of fitness, the language states, for example, that “There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof”.
(c) Unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are disclaimed by expressions such as “as is” or “with all faults”, or similar language, or conduct that in common understanding makes it clear to the lessee that the lessor assumes no responsibility for the quality or fitness of the goods. In a consumer contract, the requirements of this subsection must be satisfied by conspicuous language in a record.
(d) An implied warranty may also be disclaimed or modified by course of performance, course of dealing or usage of trade.
(e) If a lessee before entering into the contract has examined the goods or the sample or model as fully as desired or has refused to examine the goods or the sample or model, there is no implied warranty with regard to defects which a reasonable examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to the lessee.
(f) Remedies for breach of warranty may be limited in accordance with this article with respect to liquidation or limitation of damages and contractual modification of remedy.
(g) Subsections (b) to (f), inclusive, of this section shall not apply to leases of new or used consumer goods, except for those goods clearly marked “irregular”, “factory seconds” or “damaged”. Any language, oral or written, used by a lessor or manufacturer of consumer goods that attempts to exclude or modify any implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, or to exclude or modify the consumer's remedies for breach of such warranties, shall be unenforceable.
(P.A. 02-131, S. 44.)
Nov 27, 2023
Superior
Hartford County, CT
Mar 10, 2015
New Haven County
New Haven County, CT
HFH-CV22-6019756-S Superior Court Ansonia Acquisitions I, LLC, Housing Session d/b/a Woodcliff Estates (80 Washington Street Hartford, CT 06106) v. Annette Rodriguez …
Mar 28, 2022
DOCKET NO.: NNH CV-12-6031105S = : SUPERIOR COURT NRT NEW ENGLAND LLC d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN V. : ATNEW HAVEN CHRISTOPHER G. L. JONES : SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION On July 28, 2014 this court rendered a Memorandum of Decision finding that the plaintiff had proven damages of $34,375.00 on the second count. This court scheduled a hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees and costs, and the amount of the total judgmen…
Jul 10, 2012
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, f SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH : Plaintiffs i JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. : AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : March 9, 2015 REVISED COMPLAINT FIRST COUNT 1 This is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a), prohibiting …
Feb 17, 2015
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, : SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. | AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : March 9, 2015 AMENDED COMPLA FIRST COUNT 1. is is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-11 0b(a), prohibiting u…
Feb 17, 2015
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, z SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH ie Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : April 24, 2015 REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT In the above entitled action, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that they be granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which is appended to this request, pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book 10-60(a)(3). BY: St MA. e Jeremy Collins & Molly Mc@ulloug…
Feb 17, 2015
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.