Business Law 16th Edition by Jane Mallor,James Barnes ,Arlen Langvardt,Jamie Darin Prenkert,Martin McCrory

تمرين 3

On July 1, 2005, Gary Woods purchased a Maytag 30 inch gas range oven from Plesser's, a department store in Babylon, New York. The gas oven came with a warranty that provided as follows:
Full One Year Warranty-Parts and Labor
For one (1) year from the original retail purchase date, any part which fails in normal home use will be repaired or replaced free of charge.
...
The specific warranties expressed above are the ONLY warranties provided by the manufacturer. This warranty gives you specific legal rights, and you may also have other rights that vary from state to state.
On February 29, 2008, when Woods attempted to use the oven, a malfunction occurred which caused the oven to explode. Woods attributed the explosion to an alleged defect in the starter mechanism in the oven which "causes the gas valve to open in such a manner that the open valve causes the oven to fill with gas but not ignite." On December 10, 2009, Woods brought suit against Maytag claiming, among other things, breach of express warranty. Maytag moved to dismiss the count, contending that it was barred by the four-year statute of limitations in the Code. Woods contended that the warranty came within an exception to the four-year rule because it related to future performance. Should the court view the warranty as one relating to future performance?