Express Warranty Case Study

The Plaintiff’s expressed warranty claim is unusual and likely does not meet the required elements for such a claim under Iowa law. No Iowa court appears to have dealt with a seller’s promise to “make it right” after the sale had occurred. Furthermore, Iowa courts have not yet addressed a post-sale express warranty claim. Therefore, there is not much direct precedent on this issue. Nevertheless, it does not appear the Plaintiff’s claim meets the required elements of an express warranty claim. A plaintiff must prove five elements to show a valid express warranty claim: 1) the existence of an express warranty, 2) the plaintiff relied on the express warranty when making the purchase, 3) the product did not conform to the express warranty, 4) the plaintiff’s injury was proximately caused by the breach of warranty, and 5) the plaintiff suffered provable damages. Iowa Civ. Jury Instr. 1000.1 (2004); also see Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. SMA Elevator Const. Inc., 816 F. Supp. 2d 631, 677 (N.D. Iowa 2011). This memorandum examines each of these elements in turn, besides the breach of warranty element because it appears to be met in this case (assuming a warranty exists). First, our client has a strong argument that they did not create a warranty because the AMS representative’s statements occurred after the
The statement did not refer specifically to the product itself, but instead to the possibility that AMA could take action. There were no assertions concerning the quality or nature of the product. The statement also did not provide any specifics of what AMS would do. Like Kolarik, it would be unrealistic to hold that the AMS representative’s vague statement created an expansive express warranty. Our client can argue that the statement was merely the AMS representative’s opinion of what AMS would do, not a specific representation about the