Chеm Tech Finishers, Inc. (Chem Tech), a commercial dyer and finisher of carpet, brought suit against Dalton Sheet Metal Company, Inc. (Dalton) and Paul Mueller Compаny (Mueller) to recover damages for breach of warranty in connection with the sale to Chem Tech of heat transfer equipment for use in its dye becks, whiсh equipment was designed and manufactured by Mueller and distributed by Dalton. The trial court granted summary judgment to Mueller, and Chem Tech appeals in Case No. 77364. In Case Nо. 77365, we granted Dalton’s application for interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment against Chem Tech. In Case No. 77366, Dalton cross appeals from the grant of summary judgment to Mueller.
The record reveals that in the fall of 1982 Chem Tech sought to replace the heating coils in its dye becks and entered into negotiations with Dalton, which recommended replacing the coils with Temp-Plates manufactured by Mueller. Dalton furnished Chem Teсh with sales literature provided by Mueller and introduced Chem Tech personnel to Mueller’s authorized local agent, Kent L. Fredrick. The literature containеd representations that the Temp-Plates would generate a rate of temperature rise in the dye becks of 3 degrees per minute, and that use of the Temp-Plates would result in energy savings. Chem Tech decided to purchase the Temp-Plates, and Dalton contracted to purchase them from Mueller аnd resell them at a profit to Chem Tech. The contract between Mueller and Dalton expressly limited Mueller’s liability to repair or replacement of defective goods within one year of shipping. The plates were made to correspond to Chem Tech’s specifications, and were shipped by Mueller directly to Chem Tech in August 1983. The plates did not perform as the Mueller literature represented, and actually resulted in an increased energy exрenditure. The evidence is in conflict whether, when, and to whom Chem Tech gave notice of the problem, but it is uncontroverted that in May 1984 the Temp-Plates werе replaced by Mueller.
1. In Case No. 77364, Chem Tech contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Mueller on the ground that no privity existed between them bеcause where, as here, the manufacturer’s warranty clearly was intended to extend to an identifiable third party, no privity is required.
*434
We note initially that although thе requirement of privity has been abolished for tort actions and actions against manufacturers of defective products brought by “any natural person who mаy use, consume, or reasonably be affected by the property and who suffers injury to his person or property . . . ,” OCGA § 51-1-11 (a) and (b) (1), no such change has been effected as to corporations damaged by defective products. Chem Tech argues that in
Stewart v. Gainesville Glass,
2. Because Chem Tech may not recover on warranty claims against Mueller, see Div. 1, we need not address Chem Tech’s alternate theory that it may recover because Mueller breached its limited warranty to repair or replace the defective Temp-Plates by fаiling to respond to Chem Tech’s complaints for over eight months.
3. In Case No. 77365, Dalton contends the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary judgment against Chem Tech bеcause it had limited its warranty to Chem Tech to repair or replacement of defective parts, and replacement was accomplished when ■Mueller replaced the Temp-Plates in May 1984.
The contract between Dalton and Chem Tech was prepared by *435 Dalton and contained the following language: “The equipment manufactured by us is guaranteed to be free from all latent defects in material and workmanship disclosed under normal use and service, and should any part thereof be found within one year from date of shipment to be so defective at the time furnished, we will furnish a replacemеnt or repair said part, not including labor. . . . This guarantee is issued expressly in lieu of all other warranties expressed or implied by law or trade usage, and of аll other obligations or liabilities on our part, and we neither assume nor authorize any person to assume for us any other liability in connection with the sale of our apparatus.” (Emphasis supplied.) Although it is undisputed that Dalton did not manufacture the Temp-Plates, but merely purchased them from Mueller and resold them to Chem Tech at a profit, Dalton argues that the limitation of warranty must be construed to apply to goods it distributed or sold, as well as those it manufactured, because the only goods which were the subject of the contract between it and Chem Tech were goods it did not manufacture. We do not agree.
We concur with the trial court’s reasoning that Dalton’s argument would require us not only to construe the language of the contract, but to revise it. “ ‘If [a] writing contains a warranty of some kind or to some extent, parol еvidence will not be admitted to extend, enlarge, or modify that which the writing specifies. [Cits.]’ [Cit.] [Emphasis omitted.] Courts are not at liberty to revise contracts while profеssing to construe them. [Cits.]”
Stuckey v. Kahn,
4. Dalton denominates its appeal in Case No. 77366 a cross-appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Mueller. However, Mueller is not an appellant, and consequently even assuming Dalton had standing to appeal from a grant of summary judgment to its co-defendant, see generally
Savannah Inn-Towner &c. v. Mc-Cauley,
Judgment affirmed in Case Nos. 77364 and 77365. Appeal dismissed in Case No. 77366.