Civil Model Jury Charge4.22BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE UNDER U.C.C.
Where at the time of contracting a seller has reason to know that the buyer requires the goods for a particular purpose and that the buyer is relying on the sellers skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, the law implies a warranty by the seller that the goods are fit for that purpose.
Therefore, the first question for you to determine is whether plaintiff in fact relied upon defendants skill or judgment as distinguished from his/her own skill or judgment in buying [describe the goods].
In making that determination you should consider all the facts and circumstances, both what was said and what was done, at the time of the sale, (including, if you find that to be the fact, the reference to the [describe the goods] by trade or brand name, but I charge you that the use of a trade or brand name is but one of the circumstances for you to consider in determining whether plaintiff relied upon sellers skill or judgment rather than upon his/her own judgment).If you find that plaintiff did not rely on defendants skill or judgment your verdict must be for defendant.
If you find that plaintiff did in fact rely upon defendants skill or judgement, you must next determine whether under all of the facts and circumstances existing at the time of the sale, defendant had reason to know that plaintiff required [the goods] for a particular purpose and was relying on defendants skill, or judgment.
It is not necessary that plaintiff have stated his/her purpose in so many words; it is enough that the circumstances gave defendant reason to know of plaintiffs purpose and that plaintiff was relying upon defendants skill or judgment.
If you find that defendant did not have reason to know those facts, your verdict will be for defendant.
If you find that plaintiff did in fact rely upon defendant and that defendant had reason to know that plaintiff was relying upon him/her and that plaintiff required [the goods] for a particular purpose, you must next consider whether [the goods] was/were fit for that purpose. If you find that [the goods] was/were fit for the particular purpose your verdict will be for defendant.
If you find that [the goods] was/were not, you must then determine whether plaintiff gave notice of that fact to defendant within a reasonable time after he/she discovered or should have discovered that [the goods] was/were not fit for the particular purpose. When plaintiff should have discovered the defect depends upon all the facts and circumstances, including the nature of the defect, the time when [the goods] was/were put in use and whether the defect was discoverable by customary and reasonable inspections.
Notice will be sufficient in form if it informed the defendant that the buyer claimed that [the goods] was/were defective. If you find that plaintiff did not give such notice or did not give it within a reasonable time[1]after he/she discovered or should have discovered the defect, your verdict will be for defendant. If you find that notice was given within a reasonable time after plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the defect, your verdict will be for plaintiff and you will proceed to consider the measure of damages.
Commentary:
The above charge is based onN.J.S.A. 12A:2-315 and 12A:2-607. Note that the above charge deals with fitness for aparticularpurpose whereas the implied warranty of merchantability underN.J.S.A. 12A:2-314 deals with fitness for theordinaryproposes for which such goods are used. As to damages for breach of warranty under the U.C.C.,seeN.J.S.A. 12A:2-714 and 2-715;see alsocover as defined byN.J.S.A. 12A:2-712.
See alsoModel Civil Charge 4.45 regarding actions brought under the Motor Vehicle Lemon Law,N.J.S.A. 56:12-29et seq.
