Published — March 28, 2021
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of your own lawyer to address your legal concerns, if any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
More on warranty: ON CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES WARRANTIES
-
A warranty is a statement or representation made by the seller of goods
-
There is an express warranty if the buyer purchased the thing relying on the affirmation of fact or promise of the by the seller relating to the thing
-
A warranty is part of the contract of sale
May the statement of a seller be considered as warranty?
For a better understanding, let us take the case of Philippine Steel Coating Corp vs. Eduard Quinones, G.R. No. 194533, April 19, 2017.
In this case, Quinones (owner of Amianan Motors) filed a case against Philippine Steel Coating (PhilSteel) for damages. Quinones stated that PhilSteel offered to him their new product: primer-coated, long span, rolled galvanized iron (G.I.) sheets. Quinones showed interest but asked PhilSteel through Lopez, its sales engineer, if the primer-coted sheets were compatible with the Guilder acrylic paint process used by Amianan Motors in the finishing of its assembled buses. Uncertain, Lopez referred the query to his immediate superior, Ferdinand Angbengco, PhilSteel’s sales manager.
Angbengco assured Quinones that the quality of their new produce was superior to that of the non-primer coated G.I. sheets being used by the latter in his business. Quinones expressed reservations, as the new product might not be compatible with the pain process used by Amianan Motors.
Angbengco further guaranteed that a laboratory test had in fact been conducted by PhilSteel, and that the results proved that the two products were compatible. For this reason, Quinones was induced to purchase the product and use it in the manufacture of bus units.
However, sometime in 1995, Quinones received several complaints from customers who had bought bus units claiming that the paint or finish used on the purchased vehicles was breaking and peeling off. Quinones then sent a letter-complaint to PhilSteel invoking warranties given by the latter.
PhilSteel counters that Quinones himself offered to purchase the subject product directly form the former without being induced by any of PhilSteel’s representatives. According to its own investigation, PhilSteel discovered that the breaking and peeling off of the paint was caused by the erroneous painting application done by Quinones. They even argue that that purported warranties by mere “vague oral statements” cannot be invoked to warrant the payment of damages.
Is there an express warranty in this case?
The Supreme Court said:
Yes.
First, a warranty is a statement or representation made by the seller of goods (contemporaneously and as part of the contract of sale) that has reference to the character, quality or title of the goods. It is issued to promise or undertake to insure that certain facts are or shall be as the seller represents them. A warranty is not necessarily written. It may be oral as long as it is not given as a mere opinion or judgment. Rather, it is a positive affirmation of a fact that buyers rely upon, and that influences or induces them to purchase the product.
Here, PhilSteel through Angbengco, did not simply make vague oral statements on purported warranties. PhilSteel expressly represented to Quinones that the primer coated G.I. sheets were compatible with the acrylic paint process used by the latter on his bus units. This representation was made in the face of Quinones’ express concerns regarding incompatibility. Angbengco was so certain of the compatibility that he suggested to Quinones to assemble a bus using the primer-coated sheet and have it painted with the acrylic paint used in Amianan Motors.
Taken together, the oral statements of Angbengo created an express warranty. Those statements were positive affirmations of the fact that the Quinones relied on, and that induced him to buy PhilSteel’s primer-coated G.I. sheets.
As a result, PhilSteel was made to pay damages to Quinones.
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.
SUBSCRIBE NOW FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES!
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]