A CASE STUDY

KELLER v. INLAND METALS ALL WEATHER CONDITIONING, INC.

You be the Judge

Cindi Garlington
5/13/2013

An express warranty is one that the seller creates with his words or actions (Beatty, 2008). If a seller clearly says that the goods will meet certain standards, he has implied warranty.
In the case of Brian and Clarice Keller, Inland has definitely implied a warranty by assuring the 7.5 dehumidifier would work both by the representative and the president of the company.
The president then wrote a letter to the Keller’s stating that “This ducted system will rid you of the sweating walls and eliminate those offensive odors, and overall ‘bad air’.” He then went on to tell them that other indoor pools have had the same problem and their problems were eliminated by using one of these systems. The president then assured him that the air problems should be over and customers should be satisfied and happy.
Just the word “should” could cause problems for the Keller’s in the written word from the president. Orally he had said the ducted system would work so the express warranty has definitely been made.
I found this case rather interesting because to me it was so obvious that the express warranty was there and there was no real reason to have to take it to court. I looked up online and found out the court’s rulings on the case. This is what I summarized from the ruling. An express warranty by the seller can be created by any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer that relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain. IDAHO CODE § 28-2-313(1) (a) (2001). The primary issue in the trial was whether the dehumidification system failed to properly maintain humidity because it was too small or because the Kellers failed to maintain the air and water temperatures within the appropriate range. (caselaw.findlaw.com/id-supreme-court/1262245.html) Our case problem from the text didn’t say anything about the air and water temperatures, since this was a major part of the issue; I feel it important to say,
Inland Metals also tried the defense of puffery, saying that the letter the president sent did not contain anything that expressed warranty or guarantee, which it didn’t but they had said so in the visit.
The district court's finding that Inland Metals breached the express warranty is supported by substantial, competent evidence. Because there was sufficient evidence that the express warranty was valid, there was not a need to address implied warranty.
The Court recounts in detail its opinion how the relieving of humidity and odor in the athletic club was the underlying purpose behind the contract, and that the Kellers did not accept Inland Metal's bid until they were repeatedly assured the 7 1/212 -ton dehumidifier would accomplish this task.