Any Positive Seller Statement Is An Express Warranty
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Torts1
Example wrong choices
17979_hannahs_tractor · TORTS · Choice AHannah, because the tractor was unfit for ordinary use.
Why it's attractive
A student reads the IWM definition (fit for ordinary purposes), sees that the tractor seized mid-mow, and concludes the IWM was breached. The breaker is the Gold Key: a conspicuous AS-IS clause under UCC § 2-316(3)(a) disclaims the IWM, so the fitness finding is not the verdict.
Why it's wrong
The choice proves a fact (unfit for ordinary use) that defines an IWM breach, but the IWM was disclaimed by a conspicuous AS-IS clause. The fact is real; it does not answer a disclaimed-warranty claim. This is the dominant trap.
Spot it next time
Ask: 'Did the contract disclaim the IWM?' If yes, the fitness finding is not the verdict.
17979_hannahs_tractor · TORTS · Choice CHannah, because Daniel told Joseph that he believed the tractor was in good working order.
Why it's attractive
A student assumes any positive statement by a seller becomes a warranty. The breaker is UCC § 2-313(2): a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation does not create a warranty. 'I believe' is opinion, not affirmation of fact.
Why it's wrong
The choice asserts that a seller's 'I believe' statement is an express warranty. Under UCC § 2-313(2), a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation does not create a warranty. Even if it had risen to an express warranty, the AS-IS clause under § 2-316(1) would be construed to negate or limit it.
Spot it next time
Ask: 'Is this an affirmation of fact, or a statement of opinion or value?' Opinion is not an express warranty.
17979_hannahs_tractor · TORTS · Choice DDaniel, because he did not enter into any contractual relationship with Hannah.
Why it's attractive
A student reflexively reaches for a contract-privity rule because Hannah was not the buyer. The breaker is UCC § 2-318 (Alternative A): a seller's warranty extends to natural persons in the buyer's family or household. The no-privity answer is not a true defense to an IWM claim by a household member.
Why it's wrong
The choice imports a contract-privity rule. Under UCC § 2-318 (Alternative A), a seller's warranty extends to natural persons in the buyer's family or household. The no-privity answer is not a true defense to an IWM claim by a household member.
Spot it next time
Ask: 'Is the plaintiff a member of the buyer's household?' If yes, the IWM claim is permitted; the no-privity answer is not a true defense.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →