Sales and Leases | 203
a. Examples of Conspicuous Text Terms are generally conspicuous if, for instance, they are introduced in a heading of all capital letters of font equal to or greater in size compared to the surrounding text, or one of contrasting font, type, or color to the surrounding text of the same or smaller size. Within the body, text is normally conspicuous if it is in larger font than the surrounding text or, if the same size, it is of contrasting type, color, or font, or else set off by some symbol or mark calling attention to the language. Text is also generally conspicuous if it is in all capital letters, or if the buyer is to initial it separately, or if it is highlighted (especially on the front of a form). A term might not be conspicuous, even if set off in contrasting type, if it is buried in the middle of a long document far away from the warranty provisions or located in another document. [U.C.C. § 1-201(b)(10) (2001).] 5. Buyer’s Examination as Excluding Implied Warranties Special rules apply if the buyer, before entering the contract, has examined the goods (or a sample or model) as fully as she desired or has refused to examine them after a demand. Here, there is no implied warranty concerning any defect that an examination should, in the circumstances, have revealed to the buyer. The buyer must be allowed to examine the goods for as long as she wants, and the circumstances must bring home that the examination’s purpose is to place the risk of defects on the buyer. Several factors are relevant in determining whether an examination should reveal a defect, including the buyer’s sophistication concerning the goods, the ease of discovering the defect, and the seller’s assurances. Indeed, the buyer may be able to rely on the seller’s assurances if the defects are latent and concealed, or the buyer cannot perceive and appreciate the defects despite the inspection. [U.C.C. § 2-316(3)(b) (1951); 2 Hawkland UCC Series § 2-316:3, Westlaw (database updated June 2021); Ram Head Outfitters, Ltd. v. Mecham , No. CV 09–1382–PHX– MHM, 2011 WL 1429623 (D. Ariz. Apr. 14, 2011).] Note : As the cases cited in the following two examples illustrate, the courts’ decisions here are not always well reasoned or consistent with each other. Thus, one may see diverging outcomes in cases with similar or analogous facts to one another. [ Compare Lipnick v. Reisinger , 859 N.E.2d 600 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) with Ram Head Outfitters, Ltd. v. Mecham , No. CV 09–1382–PHX–MHM, 2011 WL 1429623 (D. Ariz. Apr. 14, 2011).] Example : A buyer contracted to purchase a puppy from a seller. The contract required the buyer to have a veterinarian examine the puppy. If the veterinarian found any obvious or significant health problems, then the buyer could return the puppy to the seller within 24 hours. The buyer had the puppy examined, as required, and the veterinarian found no health problems. However, the veterinarian conducted the examination negligently. The puppy had
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker