Lexplug logoLexplug

Prousi v. Cruisers Division of KCS International, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1997 WL 542729, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13330, 975 F. Supp. 768 (1997)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A warrantor may waive a condition precedent in its warranty, such as the requirement to deliver a product to an authorized dealer, through a course of conduct that reasonably leads the consumer to believe compliance is not required. A consumer's lawsuit for breach of warranty is not premature if the warrantor has committed an anticipatory repudiation by indicating it will not honor its warranty obligations.


Facts:

  • On April 11, 1995, Andrew S. Prousi purchased a new yacht, manufactured by Cruisers, from Greenwich Boat Works, an authorized dealer.
  • Shortly after the boat was launched in May 1995, Prousi experienced stalling issues which he reported to the dealer.
  • In July 1995, Prousi notified a Cruisers agent of several minor problems, which Prousi had repaired by local mechanics.
  • In response to the minor problems, Cruisers sent replacement parts to Prousi at no charge and informed Greenwich Boat Works that it would reimburse Prousi if the dealer did not.
  • In October 1995, a mechanic hired by Prousi discovered that the starboard engine's valves were rusted and sticking due to water intrusion, likely caused by the exhaust system installed by Cruisers.
  • On October 13, 1995, Prousi notified Cruisers of the engine problem.
  • Cruisers responded by stating the engine was warranted by a different company, Crusader, and referred Prousi to them.
  • Cruisers also allegedly refused to honor warranty service because it learned from the dealer that Prousi supposedly owed the dealer money.

Procedural Posture:

  • Andrew S. Prousi filed a lawsuit against Cruisers and Crusader Marine Engines in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a federal trial court.
  • Prousi's complaint alleged violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).
  • The court previously granted co-defendant Crusader's motion for summary judgment.
  • Defendant Cruisers then filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss all claims against it.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a manufacturer entitled to summary judgment on a breach of warranty claim where the consumer failed to deliver the product to the selling dealer as required by the warranty, when the manufacturer had previously honored minor warranty claims without enforcing that condition and allegedly repudiated its obligations for the major claim?


Opinions:

Majority - Pollak, J.

No. The manufacturer is not entitled to summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether it waived a condition precedent in its warranty and whether its actions constituted an anticipatory repudiation of its warranty obligations. Under Pennsylvania law, a party can waive a legal right through conduct that manifests an intent to relinquish that right, especially where the other party is misled and prejudiced by that conduct. Here, a fact-finder could reasonably conclude that Cruisers' conduct—honoring minor warranty claims by sending parts and promising reimbursement for work done by non-dealers—led Prousi to believe that delivering the boat to the selling dealer in New Jersey was unnecessary. Prousi was prejudiced by this reliance as he did not deliver the vessel within the warranty's time limit. Furthermore, Prousi's suit is not premature. His allegation that Cruisers refused to honor the warranty upon learning of a debt owed to the dealer amounts to a claim of anticipatory repudiation, which, under Pennsylvania's UCC, matures the claim and allows the aggrieved party to immediately resort to any remedy for breach. The court did, however, grant summary judgment for Cruisers on the claims for implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, as these were specifically and conspicuously disclaimed in the written warranty.



Analysis:

This decision illustrates that a manufacturer's course of performance can effectively waive or create an estoppel to assert specific, written conditions in a consumer warranty. It serves as a caution to warrantors that inconsistent enforcement of warranty terms may prevent them from later relying on those terms to deny a major claim. The case also affirms that state law principles, such as anticipatory repudiation under the UCC, are incorporated into federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims, providing consumers with an immediate right to sue if a warrantor makes it clear it will not perform its duties. This prevents warrantors from using procedural delays as a shield after they have already refused to provide service.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Prousi v. Cruisers Division of KCS International, Inc. (1997)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"