Tyson v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
82 N.C.App. 626, 347 S.E.2d 473, 2 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 452 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Implied consent to try an unpleaded issue is not established merely because evidence relevant to that issue was introduced without objection if the evidence also supports a properly pleaded issue; the parties must have understood the evidence to be aimed at the unpleaded issue. Additionally, a seller creates an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose when they know the buyer's particular purpose for goods and the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment, unless effectively disclaimed.
Facts:
- Plaintiff planned to use the no-till cultivation method for soybeans on 145 acres of his land.
- Plaintiff contacted defendant Farm Chemical to order Lasso and Lorox herbicides.
- Mr. Gregory, a Farm Chemical employee, recommended Dual 8E as a substitute, stating it would "do a good job," be less expensive, less risky for plaintiff's soil type, and could be mixed with Paraquat and a surfactant.
- Plaintiff, relying on Mr. Gregory's recommendation and his past business dealings with Farm Chemical, decided to use Dual 8E and ordered thirty-five gallons.
- Vance Tyson mixed the Dual 8E with Paraquat and a surfactant according to Mr. Gregory's instructions.
- The Dual 8E proved ineffective in killing crabgrass, causing damage to plaintiff's soybeans.
- The Dual 8E label from Ciba-Geigy included an express warranty for fitness when used according to directions, but did not list Paraquat and a surfactant as mixing partners.
- The Ciba-Geigy label also conspicuously disclaimed implied warranties of fitness and merchantability using darker and larger type.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint against Ciba-Geigy Corporation and Farm Chemical.
- Plaintiff filed a pretrial motion to amend his complaint to allege negligence, which the trial court denied.
- Plaintiff made a second motion at the close of his evidence to amend his complaint to allege negligence, which the trial court also denied.
- At the close of plaintiff's evidence, defendants Ciba-Geigy Corporation and Farm Chemical moved for directed verdicts on all issues.
- The trial court granted defendants' motions for directed verdicts on all claims, including those for breach of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability, and implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's denial of his motions to amend and the granting of directed verdicts to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by denying plaintiff's motions to amend his complaint to allege negligence and by granting directed verdicts for the defendants on claims of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose?
Opinions:
Majority - Hedrick, Chief Judge
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's pretrial motion or his motion at the close of evidence to amend his complaint to allege negligence. Implied consent to try an unpleaded issue under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 15(b) is not established merely because evidence relevant to that issue was introduced without objection. As established in Eudy v. Eudy, it must appear that the parties understood the evidence to be aimed at the unpleaded issue. In this case, the evidence supporting negligence also supported the properly pleaded breach of warranty claims, so defendants' failure to object did not constitute implied consent. No, the trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict for Ciba-Geigy on the breach of express warranty claim. The express warranty on the Dual 8E label only warranted fitness for "purposes referred to in the Directions for Use." Plaintiff's agent, Vance Tyson, did not mix the product according to the label's directions, and no evidence showed the product was unfit when used as directed. No, the trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict for Ciba-Geigy on the breach of implied warranty claims. Ciba-Geigy effectively disclaimed implied warranties of merchantability or fitness. The label contained language stating, "Ciba-Geigy makes no other express or implied warranty of Fitness or Merchantability or any other express or implied warranty," which was in darker and larger type, making it "conspicuous" as defined by G.S. 25-1-201(10) and thus effective under G.S. 25-2-316(2). No, the trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict for Farm Chemical on the breach of express warranty claim. The sales representative's statement that Dual 8E would "do a good job" was a mere expression of opinion or "puffing of his wares" and did not create an express warranty under G.S. 25-2-313(l)(a). Yes, the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict for Farm Chemical on the issue of breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. G.S. 25-2-315 establishes such a warranty where the seller has reason to know the buyer's particular purpose and the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment. Here, evidence showed Farm Chemical knew plaintiff's specific need (no-till soybeans) and that plaintiff relied on Mr. Gregory's recommendation for Dual 8E. There was no evidence that Farm Chemical disclaimed this warranty. Thus, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Farm Chemical made and breached an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
Concurring - Webb, Judge
I concur.
Concurring - Wells, Judge
I concur.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial guidance on several procedural and substantive legal points. It clarifies the strict interpretation of 'implied consent' under Rule 15(b) for amending pleadings, preventing parties from introducing new issues inadvertently simply because related evidence was presented. Substantively, it distinguishes between mere 'puffery' and express warranties, and reiterates the stringent requirements for conspicuous disclaimers of implied warranties under the UCC. The partial reversal highlights the critical elements for establishing an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, emphasizing the seller's knowledge of the buyer's specific needs and the buyer's reliance on the seller's expertise, especially when specific product recommendations are made. This outcome offers protection to buyers who rely on expert advice from sellers for specialized applications, ensuring that sellers are held accountable for their recommendations unless proper disclaimers are made.
