{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Also southern states breached the implied warranty

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
warranty was the proximate cause of the property damage. Also, Southern States breached the implied warranty that the herbicides were fit for their particular purpose. 24-3 // Womco, Inc v. Navistar International Corporation Facts: Both the Womco Appellants and Hall Appellants purchased several tractor trucks manufactured by Navistar through a dealer. They both had problems with their trucks’ engines overheating. They took it to their respective dealerships for diagnoses and repairs, but the mechanics were unable to fix the problem. The president of Womco had one of the trucks inspected by a radiator source, Rodieck. Rodieck found no problems with the radiator, but replaced the core. He also mentioned that it was particularly small. When the president had an audit conducted of the cooling system of one of the trucks, he realized that the trucks were overheating due to insufficient radiator capacity. Issue: Did the appellees disclaim both the implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Janine Nipal Holding: Yes, the judgment was reversed as to the appellants’ claim for breach of warranty and is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Rule of Law: The Texas UCC allows sellers to disclaim both the implied warranty of merchantability as well as the implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose. The disclaimer must mention the word “merchantability” to disclaim an
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}