Uniform Commercial Code

Prior to 1960, an injured plaintiff seeking recovery in a products HabiUty action could bring a case under either of two theories. The plaintiff could allege that the product seller was negligent, or that the seller breached a warranty that attended every product sale provided for under the Uniform Sales Act and, later, under Section 2-314 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which stipulated that for a product to be merchantable it must be "reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used." Each of these theories came with a distinct disadvantage. 

The Henningsen decision sought to impose strict HabiUty against manufacturers within the framework of the Uniform Commercial Code. Only a short time elapsed before the courts recognized that the language used by the UCC to address HabiUty provided a clumsy tool for prosecuting personal injury cases, and that strict HabiUty was a purely tort doctrine. 

Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in virtually every state, supplies the basic rules governing claims under express and implied warranties. UCC 2-313 provides that a seller makes an express warranty by affirmation of fact or promise made , by description of the goods , or by a sample or model , any of which must have been part of the... 

Through the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted by nearly all states, the user or consumer of a product receives some guarantee about the quality of a product. This is implied warranty. Implied warranty includes both (a) merchantability, and (b) fitness for a particular purpose. Merchantability means that a product fits the ordinary purposes for which people use such goods. Merchantability applies only to the sellers who normally deal in particular goods. Buyers assume that such sellers have knowledge about the products they sell. Buyers do not expect the same kind of expertise about a product when buying from a one-time seller. 

---