Okla. Stat. tit. 12A § 2A-215

Current through Laws 2024, c. 453.

Section 2A-215 - Cumulation and conflict of warranties express or implied

Warranties, whether express or implied, must be construed as consistent with each other and as cumulative, but if that construction is unreasonable, the intention of the parties determines which warranty is dominant. In ascertaining that intention the following rules apply:

(a) Exact or technical specifications displace an inconsistent sample or model or general language of description.

(b) A sample from an existing bulk displaces inconsistent general language of description.

(c) Express warranties displace inconsistent implied warranties other than an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2A-215

Added by Laws 1988, HB 1683, c. 86, § 24, eff. 11/1/1988.

Oklahoma Code Comment

The basic point of this provision is in accord with the principles of prior Oklahoma cases, although those cases involved sales and not leases. See, e.g., Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Miller, 195 P. 1083 (Okla.1921). However, the exception stated in subsection (c) varies from the principle of a prior Oklahoma case in the sales context. See Goldstein v. Welded Products Co., 164 P.2d 229 (Okla.1946) (evidence of an implied warranty of fitness in conflict with an express warranty is not admissible). To that extent, subsection (c) of this section would change Oklahoma law but it is consistent with the approach of Article 2A (and Article 2) that implied warranty is an obligation imposed by statute and not created by agreement, and may only be disclaimed or modified in carefully regulated ways.

The 1991 amendments make no change here.