The Mitsch v. General Motors Corp. Case Study

An implied warranty assures the buyer of product reliability based on the intended uses, usually expressed as commodity merchantability or fitness. There are legal exceptions to the implied warranty, especially when a sales contract comes with the “as is” clause which the merchant uses to disclaim a product’s fitness, such as in the case of Mitsch v. General Motors Corp. (2005). The critical issue regarding the case was a question of whether the “as is” disclaimer in the Chevrolet Yukon S.U.V. purchase contract was conspicuous enough to disclaim the vehicle’s implied warranty of merchantability or not. The most probable reason Rockenbach Chevrolet, the merchant, paired the purchase contract with an “as is” disclaimer is that the Yukon had covered over 36 000 miles of road service before Mitsch’s purchase.

An issue as critical as Mitsch’s claim that an “as is” disclaimer was not conspicuous requires a reliable law to analyze and decide the legality of claims on either party. The § 2302 (a) of the Magnuson Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act (Warranty Act) is the most reliable rule to apply to the case. The 15 U.S.C. § 2302(a) (2000) of the Warranty Act clearly expresses that a merchant needs to ensure information adequacy to a purchaser, where availed facts regarding a sold product prevent deception to the buyer. Relating the rule to my facts about the case, the existence of an “as is” disclaimer with an extended service plan was information clear and adequate enough to appraise the buyer of the vehicle’s condition at the time of signing the contract. Moreover, the “as is” disclaimer was written in upper case letters captured in the purchase contract which the plaintiff definitely read and signed.

In conclusion, the court made the right decision to reject Mitsch’s allegation that the “as is” contract was not conspicuous and should be voided, considering that Rockenbach Chevrolet met the Warranty Act’s legal requirements about disclosure. The rationale is that the “as is” declaimer was written in bold and isolated from other texts in the contract, implying that the plaintiff should have read the disclaimer before signing the contract. Information clarity in the contract signed by Mitch derives the conclusion that the “as is” disclaimer was conspicuous enough to disclaim the warranty of merchantability for the Yukon S.U.V.

References

Magnuson Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act (Warranty Act), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 (2000). Web.

Mitsch v. General Motors Corp., 359 Ill. App. 3d 99, 833 N.E.2d 936 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). Web.