Civil Model Jury Charge 4.22 BREACH
OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE UNDER U.C.C.
Where at the time of contracting a
seller has reason to know that the buyer requires the goods for a particular
purpose and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to
select or furnish suitable goods, the law implies a warranty by the seller that
the goods are fit for that purpose.
Therefore,
the first question for you to determine is whether plaintiff in fact relied
upon defendant’s skill or judgment as distinguished from his/her own skill or
judgment in buying [describe the goods].
In making that determination
you should consider all the facts and circumstances, both what was said and
what was done, at the time of the sale, (including, if you find that to be the
fact, the reference to the [describe the goods] by trade or brand name, but I
charge you that the use of a trade or brand name is but one of the
circumstances for you to consider in determining whether plaintiff relied upon
seller’s skill or judgment rather than upon his/her own judgment). If you find that plaintiff did not rely on
defendant’s skill or judgment your verdict must be for defendant.
If you find that plaintiff did in fact
rely upon defendant’s skill or judgement, you must next determine whether under
all of the facts and circumstances existing at the time of the sale, defendant
had reason to know that plaintiff required [the goods] for a particular purpose
and was relying on defendant’s skill, or judgment.
It is not necessary that plaintiff have
stated his/her purpose in so many words; it is enough that the circumstances
gave defendant reason to know of plaintiff’s purpose and that plaintiff was
relying upon defendant’s skill or judgment.
If you find that defendant did not have
reason to know those facts, your verdict will be for defendant.
If you find that plaintiff did in fact
rely upon defendant and that defendant had reason to know that plaintiff was
relying upon him/her and that plaintiff required [the goods] for a particular
purpose, you must next consider whether [the goods] was/were fit for that
purpose. If you find that [the goods]
was/were fit for the particular purpose your verdict will be for defendant.
If you find that [the goods] was/were not,
you must then determine whether plaintiff gave notice of that fact to defendant
within a reasonable time after he/she discovered or should have discovered that
[the goods] was/were not fit for the particular purpose. When plaintiff should have discovered the
defect depends upon all the facts and circumstances, including the nature of
the defect, the time when [the goods] was/were put in use and whether the
defect was discoverable by customary and reasonable inspections.
Notice will be sufficient in form if it
informed the defendant that the buyer claimed that [the goods] was/were
defective. If you find that plaintiff
did not give such notice or did not give it within a reasonable time[1]
after he/she discovered or should have discovered the defect, your verdict will
be for defendant. If you find that
notice was given within a reasonable time after plaintiff discovered or should
have discovered the defect, your verdict will be for plaintiff and you will
proceed to consider the measure of damages.
Commentary:
The above charge is based on N.J.S.A. 12A:2-315 and 12A:2-607. Note that the above charge deals with fitness
for a particular purpose whereas the implied warranty of merchantability
under N.J.S.A. 12A:2-314 deals with
fitness for the ordinary proposes for which such goods are used. As to damages for breach of warranty under
the U.C.C., see N.J.S.A. 12A:2-714 and 2-715; see
also “cover” as defined by N.J.S.A.
12A:2-712.
See
also Model Civil Charge 4.45
regarding actions brought under the Motor Vehicle Lemon Law, N.J.S.A. 56:12-29 et seq.
