How To Prove A California Breach of Implied Warranty – Fitness or Purpose Claim

In California, a claim of Breach of Implied Warranty – Fitness or Purpose is defined as:
A party to a warranty breaches that warranty when the product does not meet the standards of merchantability (guaranteed to work if used for its intended purpose), or fitness (guaranteed for a specific purpose) according to oral assurances made.
It simply means:
A party is liable when they verbally promise a product will meet the purposes for which it is made, or the specific needs of a customer (fitness), and it does not meet that need.
There are 6 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The plaintiff bought a product manufactured or distributed by defendant. The plaintiff purchased a product made or sold by the defendant, believing it would meet their specific needs or purposes.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff purchased a high-performance blender from the defendant’s retail store on March 15, 2023.
* The product packaging prominently displayed the defendant’s logo and included a warranty statement.
* The plaintiff relied on the defendant’s advertising, which claimed the blender was ideal for making smoothies and soups.
* The plaintiff experienced multiple malfunctions with the blender within the first month of use.
* The defendant’s customer service acknowledged that the product was designed for heavy-duty use, which the plaintiff expected. - Element 2. At the time of purchase, defendant knew or had reason to know that plaintiff intended to use the product for a particular purpose. When the buyer bought the product, the seller was aware or should have been aware that the buyer planned to use it for a specific reason, which is important in proving that the product was expected to work for that intended use.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant was informed by the plaintiff that the product was intended for a specific use during the sales conversation.
* The product was prominently displayed in a section of the store dedicated to the intended use, indicating the defendant’s awareness of its purpose.
* The defendant provided the plaintiff with promotional materials that highlighted the product’s suitability for the intended use.
* The plaintiff had previously purchased similar products from the defendant for the same purpose, establishing a pattern of use known to the defendant.
* The defendant’s sales representative explicitly recommended the product for the specific purpose stated by the plaintiff. - Element 3. Defendant also knew or had reason to know that plaintiff was relying on defendant’s skill and judgment to select or provide a product that was suitable for that particular purpose. The defendant understood, or should have understood, that the plaintiff was counting on their expertise to choose or supply a product that would work well for the specific use the plaintiff had in mind.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* Defendant was aware that plaintiff required a specific product for a unique application, as discussed during their initial consultation.
* Defendant provided detailed recommendations to plaintiff, emphasizing the suitability of the product for the intended use.
* Plaintiff expressed concerns about the product’s performance, and defendant assured them it would meet their needs.
* Defendant had prior experience with similar products and understood the importance of selecting the right one for plaintiff’s project.
* Plaintiff relied on defendant’s expertise, as they had no prior knowledge of the product category in question. - Element 4. Plaintiff justifiably relied on defendant’s skill and judgment. The plaintiff trusted the defendant’s expertise and advice when choosing a product, believing it would meet their specific needs, which is a key part of proving that the defendant failed to provide a product that was suitable for its intended use.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff sought the defendant’s expertise specifically for selecting a product suitable for their unique needs.
* The defendant assured the plaintiff that the product would meet all necessary requirements for its intended use.
* The plaintiff had no prior experience with the product and relied entirely on the defendant’s recommendations.
* The defendant provided detailed information about the product’s capabilities, leading the plaintiff to trust its suitability.
* The plaintiff communicated their specific needs to the defendant, who confirmed that the product would fulfill those requirements. - Element 5. The product was not suitable for the particular purpose. This means that the product didn’t work as expected for the specific use the buyer had in mind, even though the seller knew about that intended use, making it unsuitable for the buyer’s needs.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The product was marketed specifically for outdoor use, but it failed to withstand normal weather conditions, leading to rapid deterioration.
* The manufacturer was informed of the intended use of the product for a high-traffic area, yet it proved inadequate for such conditions.
* The product’s packaging contained no warnings or disclaimers regarding its limitations for specific applications, misleading consumers about its suitability.
* Expert testimony indicated that similar products on the market were designed to meet the specific needs of the intended purpose, while this product did not.
* The product was sold with a guarantee of performance for a particular use, but it consistently underperformed in that capacity, causing significant issues. - Element 6. Plaintiff was harmed, and the breach was a substantial factor in causing the harm. The plaintiff suffered damage, and the failure of the product to meet its intended purpose played a significant role in causing that damage.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff purchased the product specifically for a unique purpose, which was communicated to the defendant at the time of sale.
* The product failed to perform as expected, leading to significant financial losses for the plaintiff.
* Expert testimony confirmed that the product’s deficiencies directly contributed to the plaintiff’s inability to complete a critical project.
* The plaintiff experienced physical harm due to the product’s malfunction, which was directly linked to its unfitness for the intended purpose.
* The defendant was aware of the product’s limitations but failed to disclose this information to the plaintiff prior to the sale.
(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 3211.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Breach of Implied Warranty – Fitness or Purpose, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to effectively navigate your legal journey.
Prove Your CA Breach of Implied Warranty – Fitness or Purpose Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only