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.What was the main question before the court?
A) Did the sales talk constitute an implied warranty for fitness of purpose?
B) Did the sales talk constitute an implied warranty of merchantability?
C) Was the sales talk puffery or an express warranty?
D) Did the sales talk properly disclaim all express warranties?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The main question before the court was whether the sales talk constituted puffery or an express warranty. MacNeil argued that the sales talk constituted an express warranty, while Cannon argued that it was merely puffery. The court had to determine whether the statements made by Cannon were specific enough to be considered an express warranty or were general and vague enough to be considered mere puffery. Ultimately, the court found that the statements made by Cannon were puffery and not an express warranty.

In CASE 82,MacNeil Automotive Products,Ltd