XVII. Torts: Express Warranties and Misrepresentation of Fact

Arises where a seller or supplier makes any affirmation of fact or promise to the buyer relating to the goods that becomes part of the basis of the bargain.

"Basis of the bargain" is probably easier to show than reliance.

Defendant must have intended to induce reliance of the buyer, or class of persons to which the buyer belongs.

Reliance may be found if the representation was a substantial factor in inducing the purchase, even though not the sole inducement.

Privity is irrelevant.

Plaintiff need not show that breach occurred through fault of th edefendant, but only that breach of the warranty did in fact occur.

Liability for misrepresentation may arise when a representation by seller about a product induces reliance by the buyer. Usually based on strict liability, but may also arise for intentional or negligent misrepresentation.

STRICT LIABILITY -- as long as defendant is a seller engaged in the business of selling such products, there is no need to show fault on defendant's part, plaintiff need only show that the representation proved false.

INTENTIONAL -- paintiff must show that a reasonable person should have known such representations to be false when making them.

a fact concerning the quality, nature, or appropriate use of the product on which a normal buyer may be expected to rely.

Reliance by the purchaser serves to show actual cause.

If defendant can show that the misrepresentation was intentional, contributory negligence would be no defense.

No assumption of risk possible.