In CASE 8.2 MacNeil Automotive Products,Ltd.v.Cannon Automotive,Ltd.(2010),MacNeil subcontracted with Canon Automotive to provide floor mats on automobiles.MacNeil claimed the mats were defective and breached the express warranty.The main question before the court was whether:
A) the sales talk constituted an implied warranty for fitness of purpose.
B) the sales talk constituted an implied warranty of merchantability.
C) the sales talk was puffery or an express warranty.
D) the sales talk properly disclaimed all express warranties.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The main question before the court was whether the sales talk constituted puffery or an express warranty. This implies that MacNeil was arguing that the statements made by Cannon Automotive amounted to an express warranty. Therefore, the correct answer is C.

In CASE 82 MacNeil Automotive Products,Ltd