817 F. Supp. 2d 465
D.N.J.2011Background
- Plaintiff alleges latent gel coat defect in Viking yachts and brings breach of warranty claims against Viking Yacht Company.
- This is a sequel to prior litigation about the 953 Series gel coat; prior decisions are incorporated by reference.
- Plaintiff purchased a used 65’ Viking yacht manufactured in 2001; defect allegedly manifested in 2008.
- Viking offered a warranty to repair/replace defects within a one-year period; the warranty language ties repair/ replacement to a defined period.
- Plaintiff filed the complaint on June 21, 2011 alleging three counts: U.C.C. breach of express warranty, U.C.C. implied warranties (merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose), and Magnuson-Moss Act breach of warranty.
- The court sua sponte addresses timeliness under N.J.S.A. 12A:2-725, applying New Jersey law on accrual and discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of express warranty claim under 12A:2-725 | Plaintiff argues discovery occurred during the warranty period; seeks unconscionability to extend the period. | Future performance warranty accrues only if discovery occurs during the warranty period; outside it, claim is time-barred. | Express warranty claim time-barred under 12A:2-725(2) as discovery did not occur within the warranty period. |
| Timeliness of implied warranties (merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose) | Implied warranties should not be time-barred by the exclusive one-year warranty period. | Implied warranties accrue at tender of delivery and are governed by the same four-year window; not extended by the one-year express warranty. | Implied warranty claims are time-barred. |
| Timeliness of Magnuson-Moss Act claim | Claims should survive under Magnuson-Moss even if state-law claims are time-barred. | Magnuson-Moss aligns with state-law limitations; no independent statute of limitations. | Magnuson-Moss claim dismissed as time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Poli v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 349 N.J. Super. 169, 793 A.2d 104 (App.Div. 2002) (App.Div. 2002) (warranty to repair within period construed as future performance to extend beyond delivery)
- Docteroff v. Barra Corp. of Am., Inc., 282 N.J. Super. 230, 659 A.2d 948 (App.Div. 1995) (App.Div. 1995) (future performance warranty construed as extending to future repair obligations)
- South Jersey Gas Co. v. Mueller Co. Ltd., 2010 WL 1742542 (D.N.J. Apr. 27, 2010) (D.N.J. 2010) (future performance warranty analysis; discovery during warranty period required)
- South Jersey Gas Co. v. Mueller Co. Ltd., 429 F. App’x 128 (3d Cir. 2011) (3d Cir. 2011) (affirmed district court on limitations due to warranty period interpretation)