Tennessee § 47-2-314 - Implied warranty — Merchantability — Usage of trade.

§ 47-2-314. Implied warranty — Merchantability — Usage of trade.

Unless excluded or modified (§ 47-2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Under this section the serving for value of food or drink to be consumed either on the premises or elsewhere is a sale. Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as: pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and in the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require; and conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any. Unless excluded or modified (§ 47-2-316 ) other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade. Acts 1963, ch. 81, § 1 (2-314). Prior Tennessee Law: § 47-1215. Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 6 Tenn. Juris., Commercial Law, §§ 2, 3, 12, 14, 16; 13 Tenn. Juris., Food, § 5. Law Reviews. Case Comment, Contracts — Morris v. Mack's Used Cars: Another Weapon for the Consumer Protection Arsenal, 23 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 871 (1993). New Home Construction Liability (Jeff Mueller), 43 Tenn. B.J. 18 (2007). The Aftermath of Owens and Whitehead — Products Liability and Comparative Fault in Tennessee-How Deep Does the Relationship Run?, 32 U. Mem. L. Rev. 443 (2002). Cited: Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Morton Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 417 F.2d 921, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10620 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1969); Country Clubs, Inc. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 430 F.2d 1394, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7643 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1970); MBI Motor Co. v. Lotus/East, Inc., 506 F.2d 709, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5713 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1974); Fuller v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 545 S.W.2d 103, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975); Curtis v. Murphy Elevator Co., 407 F. Supp. 940, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17216 (E.D. Tenn. 1976); Kopper Glo Fuel, Inc. v. Island Lake Coal Co., 436 F. Supp. 91, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15652 (E.D. Tenn. 1977); R. Clinton Constr. Co. v. Bryant & Reaves, Inc., 442 F. Supp. 838, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12222 (N.D. Miss. 1977); Wilson v. Dake Corp., 497 F. Supp. 1339, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14130 (E.D. Tenn. 1980); In re Ashley, 5 B.R. 262, 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 4801 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1980); Haverlah v. Memphis Aviation, Inc., 674 S.W.2d 297, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3389 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984); Higgs v. General Motors Corp., 655 F. Supp. 22, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12146 (E.D. Tenn. 1985); Foley v. Dayton Bank & Trust, 696 S.W.2d 356, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2778 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985); Beaman v. Schwartz, 738 S.W.2d 632, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3462 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986); Paty v. Herb Adcox Chevrolet Co., 756 S.W.2d 697, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 302 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); Board of Dirs. v. Southwestern Petro. Corp., 757 S.W.2d 669, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).