Bayliner Marine Corp. v. Crow
509 S.E.2d 499 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A seller's generalized statements of opinion or commendation, known as puffery, do not create an express warranty. To prevail on a breach of an implied warranty of merchantability, a plaintiff must prove the good is not fit for its ordinary purpose by establishing the standard of merchantability in the trade, and for an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, the buyer must have communicated their specific, particular needs to the seller.
Facts:
- John R. Crow took a test ride on a 3486 Trophy Convertible boat manufactured by Bayliner Marine Corporation.
- A sales representative for the dealer, Tidewater Yacht Agency, provided Crow with Bayliner's 'prop matrixes' which stated a maximum speed of 30 mph for that boat model, though the specifications (propeller size, weight) differed from the boat Crow would purchase. The matrixes contained a disclaimer.
- The sales representative also gave Crow a Bayliner brochure stating the boat model 'delivers the kind of performance you need to get to the prime offshore fishing grounds.'
- Crow purchased the boat and had approximately 2,000 pounds of additional equipment installed by Tidewater.
- Upon taking delivery, Crow discovered the boat's maximum speed was only 13 mph, and despite numerous repair attempts, its maximum speed only reached 17 mph.
- A Bayliner representative later informed Crow that the boat's actual maximum speed was 23 to 25 mph.
- Crow testified that this speed was insufficient for his intended use of offshore fishing in the Tidewater area of Virginia, which involves traveling long distances to fishing grounds.
- Between September 1989 and September 1994, the boat's engines registered approximately 850 hours of use.
Procedural Posture:
- John R. Crow filed a motion for judgment against Bayliner Marine Corporation in a Virginia trial court.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Crow.
- The trial court found Bayliner had breached an express warranty and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.
- The trial court awarded Crow damages of $135,000, plus prejudgment interest.
- Bayliner Marine Corporation (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Virginia, where John R. Crow is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a boat manufacturer breach an express warranty or the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose when its product fails to meet performance expectations derived from general marketing materials that did not apply to the specific product sold, and does not satisfy the buyer's uncommunicated speed requirements for his particular use?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Keenan
No. The boat manufacturer did not breach any express or implied warranties. For an express warranty to exist, an affirmation of fact must relate to the particular goods sold, and the statements in the 'prop matrixes' did not apply to the specific, heavier boat with different propellers that Crow purchased. The brochure's statement about performance was merely the seller's opinion or 'puffery,' not a specific, warrantable fact. The claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability fails because Crow presented no evidence of the standard of merchantability in the offshore fishing boat trade to prove that this boat would not 'pass without objection.' The boat was fit for its ordinary purpose, as evidenced by Crow's 850 hours of use for fishing. Finally, the claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose fails because Crow never informed the seller that a specific maximum speed of 30 mph was a necessary requirement for his use, only that he intended to use it for the general purpose of 'offshore fishing'.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinct requirements for proving breaches of different types of warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It establishes a clear line between actionable express warranties, which must be specific promises related to the actual goods sold, and non-actionable 'puffery' in marketing materials. The decision places a significant evidentiary burden on plaintiffs for implied warranty claims, requiring them to introduce objective evidence of trade standards for merchantability claims and proof of clear communication for fitness for a particular purpose claims. This precedent makes it more difficult for buyers to succeed on warranty claims based on their subjective, uncommunicated expectations about a product's performance.
Unlock the full brief for Bayliner Marine Corp. v. Crow