Gragan (K) Limited v General Motors (K) Limited & another  eKLR85. Further, from the maintenance and warranty booklet issued by the 1stdefendant it is clear thedefendants expressly warranted the vehicle to be free from defects in material and workmanship undernormal use and service on the listed terms. However, there was no warranty as to themerchantability or fitness for the purpose for which the vehicle was intended . Such warranty wouldonly be implied if the buyer relied on the skill and judgment of the seller or dealer or where thevehicle(goods) were bought by description from a seller dealing with such goods. The plaintiff didnot adduce any evidence to show that it relied on the skill and judgment of the defendants or that thesuit motor vehicle was bought by description and for a specific purpose.86. In my humble view, the plaintiff was under a duty to check if there were any defects before usingthe motor vehicle for its intended purpose. There is no dispute that the said motor vehicle brokedown after covering 3175 kilometers. According to the warranty document as exhibited, if the enginemalfunctioned during the duration of the warranty, then the buyer would deliver it to the dealer forrepair or replacement of the diesel engine after the dealer satisfied itself that the part was defective.In this case, there was evidence that after the vehicle broke down , the same was delivered to the2nddefendant dealer for repairs, and that it was repaired but that and when it returned to the buyer, itbroke down again on 23rdOctober 1995. 87. The 1stdefendant confirmed that the vehicle had engine failure due to engine overrun and thatwhen the vehicle was delivered to the plaintiff, it broke down at mileage 10,247 and on 13thFebruary1996, the report was the same as that of engine failure due to suspected engine overrun. What ismissing from both the plaintiff and defendant’s evidence is what an engine overrun is. This isinformation which could have been explained by an independent motor vehicle or automotive expert.The expert would, in my view be in a position to explain to this court whether engine overrun is afundamental manufacture’s defect in a motor vehicle or can be caused by normal usage of the motorvehicle. In the absence of the independent expert’s evidence as to whether engine overrun in thesuit motor vehicle was due to a manufacturer’s fundamental defect, or due to other causes, thiscourt would not be in a position to find that the engine failure was due to a fundamentalmanufacturer’s defect. To find otherwise would be speculating the meaning of technical terms used in adifferent profession and setting. Furthermore, DW1 did not explain to the court what that engine overrunwas. That being the case, it was upon the plaintiff to call for such independent expert to explain to thecourt the meanings of such technical terms since DW1 did not even inspect the suit motor vehicle.