Foley v. Dayton Bank & Trust

696 S.W.2d 356 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1985

Facts

Plaintiffs purchased a used 1977 International Transtar II truck from Dayton Bank and Trust, which had repossessed the vehicle. Plaintiffs alleged the bank's representative expressly warranted the engine was in excellent condition and that implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose applied. The truck's engine failed shortly after purchase, and plaintiffs sought to rescind the transaction, but the trial court dismissed their suit.

Issue

Did the trial court err in finding that the bank did not make an express warranty regarding the truck's engine condition? Did the trial court err in failing to find implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose applied to the sale?

Holding

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the bank's statement about the engine was a mere opinion, not an express warranty. It also found no implied warranty of merchantability because the bank was not a merchant of such trucks, and no implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose as the truck was for general use.

Rule

An express warranty requires an affirmation of fact or promise, not a mere opinion (T.C.A. § 47-2-313). An implied warranty of merchantability applies only if the seller is a 'merchant with respect to goods of that kind' (T.C.A. § 47-2-314, § 47-2-104). An implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose requires the buyer to rely on the seller's skill for a specific, particular purpose (T.C.A. § 47-2-315).

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-04-18. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.