>
> There is nothing here about knowing the intended use, so I would say the
> presumptions run in the direction of an absolute warranty unless the
seller
> has disclaimed it totally or in part. The seller in the scenario presented
> is certainly a merchant regularly dealing in goods of the kind, and the
> buyer has provided no specifications that would vary the warranty. Where
> Bodi gets his inversion of this arrangement is not clear to me.
I inverted nothing. The warranty of merchantability only implies to the ORDINARY use, unless the vendor is informed of the actual use different from the ordinary use. One could easily see the ordinary use of a video clip as being for personal or group viewing, but NOT for copying and incorporating in a different video.
>
> If the circumstances of the sale suggested that the buyer wanted to use
the
> clip for a purpose that is not authorized by virtue of the rights the
> seller has in the clip, then one might argue, as the seller, that this
> constitutes a specification. The buyer, however, could just as easily (and
> where the buyer is not also a sophisticated merchant, with greater
> likelihood of success) argue that such circumstances give rise to an
> obligation for the seller to speak to limit its warranty.
"Just as easily"? I think that facts must be presented in support. As I stated, if the use is not ordinary, there is no warranty for use. The seller does not warrant for a use that is not ordinary AND not communicated to the seller in some manner.
-Bodi Received on Thu Nov 13 2003 - 21:55:26 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:50 GMT