Case Study 2 Keller V Inland Metals
Case Study: Implied Warranty
Of Merchantability
In the case of Keller v. Inland Metals All Weather Conditioning, Inc., the question has come about asking if there was an express warranty given by the CEO of Inland Metals to the Kellers when they signed a contract. If in fact there was an express warranty then there may be breach of contract by Inland Metals.
The Keller’s were in need of an air humidifier for the pool area in their new athletic club because of the foul smelling odor. They received two bids from two different companies for a 7.5 ton humidifier and a 10 ton humidifier. Not knowing much about humidifiers they did not know which one would be the best for their pool area. The 7.5 ton humidifier was cheaper than the 10 ton humidifier but they did not know if it would be big enough to get rid of the odor. The president of Inland Metals and a representative made a visit to the athletic club and both agreed that the 7.5 ton humidifier would be big enough to fix their problem. Inland then sent a letter to the Keller’s stating that “the duct system will rid of the sweating walls and eliminate those offensive odors and overall bad air”. Once the humidifier was installed, the Kellers continued to have problems with the odor in the pool area.
I believe that Inland Metals did in fact have an express warranty because of the statement that was made in person and in the letter sent by the president of the company. The Kellers would not have purchased the 7.5 ton humidifier if the president had not given them a statement telling them that the humidifier would work to solve their problem. Even though the 7.5 ton humidifier was cheaper for the Kellers, they did not have knowledge about humidifiers and they relied on the statement of the president when they purchased the humidifier and not on the fact that it was a cheaper price than the 10 ton humidifier. I think the Kellers should be awarded their money back for their purchase from Inland Metals.
Of Merchantability
In the case of Keller v. Inland Metals All Weather Conditioning, Inc., the question has come about asking if there was an express warranty given by the CEO of Inland Metals to the Kellers when they signed a contract. If in fact there was an express warranty then there may be breach of contract by Inland Metals.
The Keller’s were in need of an air humidifier for the pool area in their new athletic club because of the foul smelling odor. They received two bids from two different companies for a 7.5 ton humidifier and a 10 ton humidifier. Not knowing much about humidifiers they did not know which one would be the best for their pool area. The 7.5 ton humidifier was cheaper than the 10 ton humidifier but they did not know if it would be big enough to get rid of the odor. The president of Inland Metals and a representative made a visit to the athletic club and both agreed that the 7.5 ton humidifier would be big enough to fix their problem. Inland then sent a letter to the Keller’s stating that “the duct system will rid of the sweating walls and eliminate those offensive odors and overall bad air”. Once the humidifier was installed, the Kellers continued to have problems with the odor in the pool area.
I believe that Inland Metals did in fact have an express warranty because of the statement that was made in person and in the letter sent by the president of the company. The Kellers would not have purchased the 7.5 ton humidifier if the president had not given them a statement telling them that the humidifier would work to solve their problem. Even though the 7.5 ton humidifier was cheaper for the Kellers, they did not have knowledge about humidifiers and they relied on the statement of the president when they purchased the humidifier and not on the fact that it was a cheaper price than the 10 ton humidifier. I think the Kellers should be awarded their money back for their purchase from Inland Metals.