ORS 72.3150¹
Implied warranty: fitness for particular purpose

Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under ORS 72.3160 (Exclusion or modification of warranties) an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose. [1961 c.726 §72.3150 (Implied warranty: fitness for particular purpose)]

Notes of Decisions

A municipal corpora­tion engaged in the business of supplying wa­ter to its inhabitants is engaged in an undertaking of a private nature and is generally liable therein for breach of contract or for negligence as a private corpora­tion would be, but is not subject to an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Coast Laundry, Inc. v. Lincoln City, 9 Or App 521, 497 P2d 1224 (1972)

The seller was shown to have breached implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Valley Iron and Steel Co. v. Thorin, 278 Or 103, 562 P2d 1212 (1977)

In products liability ac­tion against manufacturer, where defective product was purchased from distributor and not from manufacturer, there was no "privity of contract" between consumer and manufacturer and thus implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose was not applicable to consumer. Davis v. Homasote Company, 281 Or 383, 574 P2d 1116 (1978)

Evidence, inter alia, that buyer gave no specifica­tions for electronic control unit, that buyer relied upon seller's skill and judg­ment in its design and manufacture unit, and that buyer's inspec­tion did not reveal latent defects, was sufficient to es­tab­lish existence of implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose. Controltek, Inc. v. Kwikee Enterprises, Inc., 284 Or 123, 585 P2d 670 (1978)

Representa­tion that hay baler was only two years old and had been used only one year was express warranty as it was state­ment of fact ma­te­ri­al to bargain in view of plaintiff's express criterion that baler be newer than his former machine and fact that representa­tion was innocently made in reliance on in­for­ma­­tion supplied by third party was imma­te­ri­al. Miller v. Hubbard-Wray Co., 52 Or App 897, 630 P2d 880 (1981), Sup Ct review denied, as modified by 53 Or App 531, 633 P2d 1 (1981)

Law Review Cita­tions

28 WLR 565 (1992)

Chapter 72

Law Review Cita­tions

53 OLR 468-473 (1974); 58 OLR 545 (1980)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 72—Sales, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors72.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 72, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­072ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information