Baseball Bat. Lawsuit

Baseball Bat. Lawsuit

Relevant Facts

The Plaintiff bought a baseball bat from the defendant. The baseball bat broke (shattered) on the first use.

Issue Presented

The issue is whether the defendant must refund the cost of the baseball bat to the plaintiff.

Applicable Law
Goods sold must be able to perform the functions for which they were advertised and sold. U.C.C. 2-315 states “Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.”

Industria De Calcados Martini Ltda. v. Maxwell Shoe Co., 36 Mass. App. Ct. 268 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994), found that, although the product was received by the buyer, the product was defective which violates the implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code.

In Dudzik v. Klein's All Sports, 158 Misc. 2d 72 (N.Y. J. Ct. 1993)the court found that a baseball bat should not shatter when used normally and that the purchaser was entitled to a complete refund plus sales tax because of the breach of warranty of merchantability.

Application to Our Case

The Plaintiff’s baseball bat shattered the first time they used it to play baseball, and the U.C.C. § 2-315 demands that baseball bat must be fit for the purpose it was sold for. That is not the case here. A baseball bat should withstand the force of hitting baseballs. That is its purpose. As in Industria, this baseball bat was clearly defective and this would violate the implied warranty of merchantability under U.C.C. § 2-315. As in Dudzik, the plaintiff was using the bat for its intended purpose and a bat should not shatter under those circumstances. Like Dudzik, the plaintiff is entitled to a complete refund.


Therefore, the plaintiff is...

Similar Essays