Expressed warranties protect the buyer from false claims from sellers in an attempt to make a sale. Sellers are responsible for any goods that do not live up to the expressed warranties guaranteed to buyers.
When consumers purchase goods they expect them to accomplish certain goals. The Keller’s, in this case purchased a 7 ½ ton dehumidifier from Inland in an attempt to “clear the air” near the pool in their athletic club for which Inland promised that the system would achieve. However, the system did not accomplish what it set out to do and therefore the Keller’s can sue for breach of an express warranty.
The Keller’s received other bids but had multiple meeting with Inland’s president to see if the smaller, cheaper, dehumidifier would meet their expressed needs. Inland went as far as bringing in a manufacturer for the dehumidifier to close the deal with the Keller’s. They both assured the Keller’s that their system would work to combat the issues they had. The president of Inland went one step further and wrote a letter solidifying that the system would rid them of the overall bad air and sweating walls. The Keller’s relied on these promises and ultimately purchased the system from Inland which in the end did not live up to the expectations assured.
The sales pitch by Inland amounted to an express warranty. A warranty is a contractual assurance that goods will meet certain standards. An express warranty is one that the seller creates with his words or actions. (Beatty, Samuelson & Bredeson 2013, p.231). An express warranty need not be in writing but can be oral. As long as the seller clearly indicates to a buyer that the goods being sold will meet certain standards an express warranty is attached.
When Inland orally assured the Keller’s that the 7 ½ ton unit was adequate and would work created an express warranty. The letter was an added bonus for the Keller’s express warranty claim. Because the 7 ½ ton dehumidifier did not rid them of the expressed specific concerns for which they purchased the system I believe Inland has breached the express warranty between them and the Keller’s. Inland cannot use the defense that the letter and verbal assurances as to the reliability of the system were nothing more than a sales gimmick to close a sale. Also, Inland’s defense that they never said that they “guarantee” that the unit would resolve all the problems is irrelevant. To establish an expressed warranty the term guarantee is not required. The fact is that Inland stated that the unit would perform and thus they are liable because their claim was an expressed warranty.
The law at hand in this case is the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The Keller’s clearly told Inland the issues they were having and what they needed the system to eliminate. Inland was the expert in this field and the assurances they made to the Keller’s were relied upon. The Keller’s with limited, if any knowledge on dehumidifiers initially thought the 7 ½ ton was too small but because the “experts” told them that it was adequate they purchased the system and they should be awarded any money already paid to Inland because of the breach of the express warranty made.
The most important warranty is the warranty of merchantability. Unless excluded, a warranty that the goods purchased should be merchantable is implied if the seller is someone who routinely deals in these goods. This warranty means that the goods are fit for the ordinary purposes for which they are used. The Keller’s made the purchase from Inland, who is in the business of selling dehumidifiers and they trusted that the purchased goods were merchantable and would live up to certain standards and carry out intended functions. When Inland assured that the unit would do certain things they were establishing an expressed warranty and those standards should be upheld. Any breach to such warranties should warrant the buyer remedy.
Reference List

Beatty, J. F., Samuelson, S. S., Bredeson, D. A., (2013) Introduction to Business Law (4th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.