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-2-313. Express warranties by affirmation, promise, description, sample. (1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows: (a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise. (b) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description. (c) Any sample or model which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the whole of the goods shall conform to the sample or model.
(2) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as “warrant” or “guarantee” or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty.
(1959, P.A. 133, S. 2-313.)
Description of warranty liability has undergone clarification in the Uniform Commercial Code. 176 C. 97. Cited. 184 C. 10; Id., 607; 191 C. 150; 203 C. 342; 216 C. 65; 218 C. 297.
Cited. 1 CA 690; 2 CA 308; 33 CA 575.
Third party beneficiary of express and implied warranties was not required to give notice of their breach to manufacturer under Sec. 42a-2-607 as condition precedent to suit. 26 CS 223. Law of express and implied warranty is part of and distinguished in title; code does not relate to real property and it has virtually eliminated doctrine of caveat emptor with regard to sale of personalty. 28 CS 476, 481. Cited. 32 CS 69.
Where receipt for payment of price of used car was plainly stamped “This car not guaranteed” and sales agreement also had such notation and defendant's salesman said clearly car sold at agreed price could not be guaranteed, there was no express or implied warranty in sale. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 685.
Subsec. (1):
Cited. 27 CA 810.
Cited. 33 CS 108; 39 CS 107.
Nov 27, 2023
Superior
Hartford County, CT
Jan 26, 2024
Hartford County
Hartford 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, : 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, 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, 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.