• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Warranty Info... Maguson-Moss Act?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

What is the name of your state? Connecticut.

I purchased an all in one headboard footboard with wooden frame. I purchased the item on January 10th 2007, and only had it for about 2 months when it started to break on me. I'm not abusing the unit at all and I believe that the unit is of poor craftmanship. I tried to call the vendor about exchanging or replacing the item but they told me there was no warranty. The discount furniture store didn't have any warranty information posted in the store, in their weekly flyer or in the invoice.. the invoice states "No Refunds/Exchange Only". Would I be covered under the Maguson-Moss Act for breach of warranty? Isn't this considered an expressed and unilateral contract? What would be my best course of action? Taking them to small claims court for the amount of the bed and filing suit for punative damages?
 
Last edited:


tranquility

Senior Member
From what you've written, I don't think you have any recourse. No suit, no punitive damages, no Magnuson-Moss Act, no nothing beyond a lesson to be more careful in your purchases in the future.
 
how is this applicable?

Understanding the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is the federal law that governs consumer product warranties. Passed by Congress in 1975, the Act requires manufacturers and sellers of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage. In addition, it affects both the rights of consumers and the obligations of warrantors under written warranties.

To understand the Act, it is useful to be aware of Congress' intentions in passing it. First, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could get complete information about warranty terms and conditions. By providing consumers with a way of learning what warranty coverage is offered on a product before they buy, the Act gives consumers a way to know what to expect if something goes wrong, and thus helps to increase customer satisfaction.

Second, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could compare warranty coverage before buying. By comparing, consumers can choose a product with the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.

Third, Congress intended to promote competition on the basis of warranty coverage. By assuring that consumers can get warranty information, the Act encourages sales promotion on the basis of warranty coverage and competition among companies to meet consumer preferences through various levels of warranty coverage.

Finally, Congress wanted to strengthen existing incentives for companies to perform their warranty obligations in a timely and thorough manner and to resolve any disputes with a minimum of delay and expense to consumers. Thus, the Act makes it easier for consumers to pursue a remedy for breach of warranty in the courts, but it also creates a framework for companies to set up procedures for resolving disputes inexpensively and informally, without litigation.
What the Magnuson-Moss Act Does Not Require

In order to understand how the Act affects you as a businessperson, it is important first to understand what the Act does not require.

First, the Act does not require any business to provide a written warranty. The Act allows businesses to determine whether to warrant their products in writing. However, once a business decides to offer a written warranty on a consumer product, it must comply with the Act.

Second, the Act does not apply to oral warranties. Only written warranties are covered.

Third, the Act does not apply to warranties on services. Only warranties on goods are covered. However, if your warranty covers both the parts provided for a repair and the workmanship in making that repair, the Act does apply to you.

Finally, the Act does not apply to warranties on products sold for resale or for commercial purposes. The Act covers only warranties on consumer products. This means that only warranties on tangible property normally used for personal, family, or household purposes are covered. (This includes property attached to or installed on real property.) Note that applicability of the Act to a particular product does not, however, depend upon how an individual buyer will use it.

The following section summarizes what the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act requires warrantors to do, what it prohibits them from doing, and how it affects warranty disputes.
What the Magnuson-Moss Act Requires

In passing the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Congress specified a number of requirements that warrantors must meet. Congress also directed the FTC to adopt rules to cover other requirements. The FTC adopted three Rules under the Act, the Rule on Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions (the Disclosure Rule), the Rule on Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms (the Pre-Sale Availability Rule), and the Rule on Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures (the Dispute Resolution Rule). In addition, the FTC has issued an interpretive rule that clarifies certain terms and explains some of the provisions of the Act. This section summarizes all the requirements under the Act and the Rules.

The Act and the Rules establish three basic requirements that may apply to you, either as a warrantor or a seller.

As a warrantor, you must designate, or title, your written warranty as either "full" or "limited" As a warrantor, you must state certain specified information about the coverage of your warranty in a single, clear, and easy-to read document. As a warrantor or a seller, you must ensure that warranties are available where your warranted consumer products are sold so that consumers can read them before buying. The titling requirement, established by the Act, applies to all written warranties on consumer products costing more than $10. However, the disclosure and pre-sale availability requirements, established by FTC Rules, apply to all written warranties on consumer products costing more than $15. Each of these three general requirements is explained in greater detail in the following chapters.
What the Magnuson-Moss Act Does Not Allow

There are three prohibitions under the Magnuson-Moss Act. They involve implied warranties, so-called "tie-in sales" provisions, and deceptive or misleading warranty terms.

Disclaimer or Modification of Implied Warranties The Act prohibits anyone who offers a written warranty from disclaiming or modifying implied warranties. This means that no matter how broad or narrow your written warranty is, your customers always will receive the basic protection of the implied warranty of merchantability. This is explained in Understanding Warranties.

There is one permissible modification of implied warranties, however. If you offer a "limited" written warranty, the law allows you to include a provision that restricts the duration of implied warranties to the duration of your limited warranty. For example, if you offer a two-year limited warranty, you can limit implied warranties to two years. However, if you offer a "full" written warranty, you cannot limit the duration of implied warranties. This matter is explained in Titling Written Warranties as "Full" or "Limited".

If you sell a consumer product with a written warranty from the product manufacturer, but you do not warrant the product in writing, you can disclaim your implied warranties. (These are the implied warranties under which the seller, not the manufacturer, would otherwise be responsible.) But, regardless of whether you warrant the products you sell, as a seller, you must give your customers copies of any written warranties from product manufacturers.
"Tie-In Sales" Provisions

Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. The following are examples of prohibited tie-in sales provisions.

In order to keep your new Plenum Brand Vacuum Cleaner warranty in effect, you must use genuine Plenum Brand Filter Bags. Failure to have scheduled maintenance performed, at your expense, by the Great American Maintenance Company, Inc., voids this warranty.

While you cannot use a tie-in sales provision, your warranty need not cover use of replacement parts, repairs, or maintenance that is inappropriate for your product. The following is an example of a permissible provision that excludes coverage of such things.

While necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company, we recommend that you use only authorized AudioMundo dealers. Improper or incorrectly performed maintenance or repair voids this warranty.

Although tie-in sales provisions generally are not allowed, you can include such a provision in your warranty if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FTC that your product will not work properly without a specified item or service. If you believe that this is the case, you should contact the warranty staff of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection for information on how to apply for a waiver of the tie-in sales prohibition.
Deceptive Warranty Terms

Obviously, warranties must not contain deceptive or misleading terms. You cannot offer a warranty that appears to provide coverage but, in fact, provides none. For example, a warranty covering only "moving parts" on an electronic product that has no moving parts would be deceptive and unlawful. Similarly, a warranty that promised service that the warrantor had no intention of providing or could not provide would be deceptive and unlawful.
How the Magnuson Moss Act May Affect Warranty Disputes

Two other features of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act are also important to warrantors. First, the Act makes it easier for consumers to take an unresolved warranty problem to court. Second, it encourages companies to use a less formal, and therefore less costly, alternative to legal proceedings. Such alternatives, known as dispute resolution mechanisms, often can be used to settle warranty complaints before they reach litigation.
Consumer Lawsuits

The Act makes it easier for purchasers to sue for breach of warranty by making breach of warranty a violation of federal law, and by allowing consumers to recover court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. This means that if you lose a lawsuit for breach of either a written or an implied warranty, you may have to pay the customer's costs for bringing the suit, including lawyer's fees.
 
well.

Standard Manufactures Warranty. They are suppose to disclose all information pertaining to the warranty as per the Act and they havent this would make them in breach of warranty I believe.
 

Some Random Guy

Senior Member
Your own posting includes the line "First, the Act does not require any business to provide a written warranty."

There is no warranty to breach. The "Standard Manufactures Warranty" that you mention is not listed anywhere in the Act.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Standard Manufactures Warranty.
That was my point. There is no such thing. The only "standard" warranties I know of are Warranty of Merchantibility and Warrany of Fitness for a Particular purpose. The former is the only one which probably applies in your case and it has been clearly satisfied.
 
You helped me sort of.

Your right I suppose Maguson-Moss Act won't really apply but implied warranty of merchantability seems to fit here.

An implied warranty of merchantability is a warranty implied by law that if a merchant (meaning someone who makes an occupation of selling things) sells something, that merchant is guaranteeing that the goods are reasonably fit for the general purpose for which they are sold. To be merchantable (salable), goods must meet the following conditions:

1. The goods must conform to the standards of the trade as applicable to the contract for sale.
2. They must fit for the purposes such goods are ordinarily used, even if the buyer ordered them for use otherwise.
3. They must be uniform as to quality and quantity, within tolerances of the contract for sale.
4. They must be packed and labeled per the contract for sale.
5. They must meet the specifications on the package labels, even if not so specified by the contract for sale.

This warranty will apply to one who is a merchant and regularly deals in the type of merchandise sold. If the merchandise is sold with an express "guarantee", the terms of the implied warranty of merchantability will fill the gaps left by that guarantee. If the terms of the express guarantee are not specified, they will be considered to be the terms of the implied warranty of merchantability. (This section above which is highlighted, seems most interesting.)

In the United States, this subject is governed by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC allows sellers to disclaim any warranty of merchantability, provided the disclaimer is made prominently. Some states, however, have implemented the UCC such that this can not be disclaimed.



Also look at Sec 42a-2-316 (Connecticut Statute)

Connecticut Statutes
Connecticut Statutes
TITLE 42a UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
ARTICLE 2 SALES
PART 3 GENERAL OBLIGATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT


Sec. 42a-2-316. Exclusion or modification of warranties.

(1) Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and
words or conduct tending to negate or limit warranty shall be construed
wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but subject to the
provisions of this article on parol or extrinsic evidence negation or
limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction is
unreasonable.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty
of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention
merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to
exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by
a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of
fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that "There are no
warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof."

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), (a) unless the circumstances indicate
otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like "as is",
"with all faults" or other language which in common understanding calls the
buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there
is no implied warranty; and (b) when the buyer before entering into the
contract has examined the goods or the sample or model as fully as he
desired or has refused to examine the goods there is no implied warranty
with regard to defects which an examination ought in the circumstances to
have revealed to him; and (c) an implied warranty can also be excluded or
modified by course of dealing or course of performance or usage of trade.

(4) Remedies for breach of warranty can be limited in accordance with the
provisions of section 42a-2-718 on liquidation or limitation of damages and
section 42a-2-719 on contractual modification of remedy.

(5) The provisions of subsections (2), (3) and (4) shall not apply to
sales of new or unused consumer goods, except for those goods clearly
marked "irregular", "factory seconds" or "damaged". Any language, oral or
written, used by a seller or manufacturer of consumer goods, which attempts
to exclude or modify any implied warranties of merchantability and fitness
for a particular purpose or to exclude or modify the consumer's remedies
for breach of those warranties, shall be unenforceable.

(1959, P.A. 133, S. 2-316; P.A. 83-320.)

History: P.A. 83-320 added Subsec. (5) which prohibits the exclusion or
modification of implied warranties in certain circumstances.

See Sec. 42a-2-202 re final written expression of contract.

Cited. 184 Conn. 607. Cited. 203 Conn. 342. Cited. 204 Conn. 399. Cited.
226 Conn. 748. Cited. 241 Conn. 725.

Cited. 31 Conn. App 455. Cited. 33 Conn. App 575.

Cited. 32 Conn. Sup 69.

Conclusion of trial court that there was no warranty express or implied
in sale by defendant of car will not be disturbed where salesman sold car
"as is" and sales contract and receipt were stamped "no guarantees".
4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 683. Layman's use of the term "guaranty" is equated to
"warranty". Id. Cited. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 482.

Subsec. (1):

Cited. 218 Conn. 297.

Subsec. (2):

Cited. 206 Conn. 409.

Cited. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 482.

Subsec. (3):

Subdiv. (c) cited. 33 Conn. Sup 108.


Copyright © 2007 Loislaw.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Yes, I'm a law student. I also called an attorney in West Haven who also said that I can use "implied warranty of merchantability" defense.
 
Last edited:
yeah.

Funny you mention it... Im taking contract law right now but we aren't at the point in the book where it covers warranties but I did consult two different attorney's in Connecticut about it and said I could argue it pro se in small claims and would win.

How I will prove my case is with pictures of the damage and an affidavid from someone whom makes things out of wood such as a carpenter who will further go into how the manufacturer made the bed frame out of the weakest type of wood such as pine. Usually when you make a bed unit which is suppose to support a mattress and a person in a queen sized bed, it should support the weight..

Now there is also a law called "implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose"... now I told the sales person that I was looking for a box spring but she upsold me on bed unit and told me specifically that with this unit that I would be able to use this to substitute a box spring. I had told her what I wanted and what my intended usage was (which is to place my mattress on the bed unit and sleep on.)

I purchased the bed unit on January 10th and it broke on me on March 12th which is roughly 2 months and 2 days... Now wouldn't you expect this item to last a reasonable amount of time? Doesn't the law always teach about the reasonable or prudent person? Wouldn't the reasonable individual expect this product to last more than two months?
 

tranquility

Senior Member
I deleted my last post as I didn't really want to get into a debate with you. But, well here I am. You are not going to have a warranty for fitness for a particular purpose here. Study the doctrine and tell us why. Throwing things out there is an essay technique and, even though the conclusion doesn't really matter in law school, it does in real life.

Many things of the type you have are made from pine. If you wanted one made from maple, you should have paid for it. Pine is cheaper, it's not as good. You carpenter will say the wood choice was wrong and the seller will say there is a huge market for this and millions are made every year. The warranty of merchatability is not a contractual guarantee something will last a certain amount of time. You will argue you treated the bed like the finest china and the seller will say you were probably jumping on it--or at least your guests were at the last drunken study group session. Why should he be responsible? Proving the bed is broken is not enough, nor is proving it could have been made of stronger materials.

The reasonable or prudent person is a tort concept (sometimes crime). Where did you find it in your contracts class? And, those punitive damages, didn't you read a case about a mill axle which absolutely, positively had to be there but wasn't? That case was to show the limitation of contractual damages. Have you heard of the concept of efficent breach? How do punitive damages fit into that?

It doesn't cost much to sue in small claims. Go ahead and do it as many such cases are decided on many things other than the law. You might win something worth your time. Not on the theories you've mentioned with the facts provides so far, just because.
 
I deleted my last post as I didn't really want to get into a debate with you. But, well here I am. You are not going to have a warranty for fitness for a particular purpose here. Study the doctrine and tell us why. Throwing things out there is an essay technique and, even though the conclusion doesn't really matter in law school, it does in real life.

Many things of the type you have are made from pine. If you wanted one made from maple, you should have paid for it. Pine is cheaper, it's not as good. You carpenter will say the wood choice was wrong and the seller will say there is a huge market for this and millions are made every year. The warranty of merchatability is not a contractual guarantee something will last a certain amount of time. You will argue you treated the bed like the finest china and the seller will say you were probably jumping on it--or at least your guests were at the last drunken study group session. Why should he be responsible? Proving the bed is broken is not enough, nor is proving it could have been made of stronger materials.

The reasonable or prudent person is a tort concept (sometimes crime). Where did you find it in your contracts class? And, those punitive damages, didn't you read a case about a mill axle which absolutely, positively had to be there but wasn't? That case was to show the limitation of contractual damages. Have you heard of the concept of efficent breach? How do punitive damages fit into that?

It doesn't cost much to sue in small claims. Go ahead and do it as many such cases are decided on many things other than the law. You might win something worth your time. Not on the theories you've mentioned with the facts provides so far, just because.
Counselor, assuming you are one, I do appreciate your explaination on this subject matter. I have also found something which I'm wondering would be pertainant in my case...

§ 2-609. Right to Adequate Assurance of Performance.

(1) A contract for sale imposes an obligation on each party that the other's expectation of receiving due performance will not be impaired. When reasonable grounds for insecurity arise with respect to the performance of either party the other may in writing demand adequate assurance of due performance and until he receives such assurance may if commercially reasonable suspend any performance for which he has not already received the agreed return.


I found this in my research and this should answer your question as to why are they responsible...


The implied warranty of merchantability is simply the promise that the product sold is in good working order and will do what it is supposed to do. A vacuum cleaner is expected to pick up dirt and dust from carpets and floors. A refrigerator is expected to keep food cold. A toaster is expected to toast bread. If the consumer buys a product and the product does not work, then this constitutes a breach of the implied warranty. The seller is required to remedy the problem, whether by repairing or replacing the product. (It should be noted that the section of the UCC covering this type of implied warranty, Section 2-314, is law in every state except Louisiana.)

There is no law requiring a company to offer a written warranty on a product it manufactures or sells. The absence of a written warranty, however, does not mean that a product is not warranted to perform according to expectation. When a written warranty does exist, it binds the company under federal law into assuming responsibility in the event that a product malfunctions.

In Laymans terms.... the product is suppose to work and perform as such.... it's a bedding unit which is suppose to hold a queen sized mattress... if after 2 months the bedding unit falls apart and breaks its not working in accordance to it's design.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Um...no 2-609 does not apply. That you even suggest it makes me believe you are not a law student or that you should substantively reconsider your study habits.

The frame held the bed of the size you asked for, it performed up to the level of the warranty of merchantibility. There may be an argument as to how long a thing must be a thing before the breach. One second? One minute? One hour? One day? One week? One month? One year? One decade? One century? However, since the frame was completely in your possession for two months where you could have treated it in any number of manners, unless you now show a defect, you are SOL. It is not in breach of the warranty merely because it failed. It is not in breach of the warranty because it could have been designed better or have been used better materials in manufacture.

As to the rest, see supra.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top