Keller V Inland Essay Example

violated the implied warranty of merchantability.

This particular warranty is understood to be given by the seller if the seller regularly sells the goods in question. Therefore, Inland may have also broken this warranty, considering that they are a seller of these machines. To sum up, I believe that Inland did indeed violate this explicit warranty. Despite not guaranteeing the product outright, they did suggest that the 7.5 ton dehumidifier would resolve the Keller's issue of sweaty walls and eliminate unpleasant smells.

According to the Kellers, the dehumidifier did not effectively resolve the odor and sweating wall problems. This indicates that Inland has breached the express warranty and, as a result, the Kellers should receive either a refund or a repair for the amount of money they paid to Inland. I agree with the trial court's ruling that Inland is indeed in breach of the express warranty.

The implied warranty of merchantability may have been violated by Inland since they typically install commercial grade dehumidifiers. If the product they installed does not meet the intended requirements for the project, the seller should be held responsible. Thus, Inland breached two warranties and should be held accountable for the malfunctioning unit. The president of Inland and the product's manufacturer should have either offered to replace the unit with a larger one or refunded the cost of the unit, given that it did not meet the standards for its intended use.

References

1. Beatty, J. F. , & Samuelson, S. S. (2010). Introduction to Business Law. (3rd ed. ). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.