## Facts

- Consumers bought a Brigadier “Caprice” double-wide mobile home from a retailer for $32,600, paying $10,000 down and financing the balance.
- Before purchase, buyers told the retailer’s manager they required plywood flooring due to prior problems with particle-board floors.
- The manager stated the model used “Novadeck,” described as a waterproof, tongue-and-groove plywood product thicker and stronger than particle board.
- The buyers tried to inspect the flooring under the carpet but did not do so without damaging it and relied on the manager’s statements.
- The manager’s statements were based on representations made by the manufacturer’s sales representative to retailer personnel for communication to customers to help sell the manufacturer’s homes.
- After purchase, buyers discovered the floor was particle board rather than the promised plywood-like product and asserted substantial flooring defects.
- Buyers sought to revoke acceptance and recover damages for breach of warranty under the UCC; they settled with the retailer and proceeded against the manufacturer.
- The trial court allowed revocation of acceptance against the manufacturer and awarded damages for breach of express warranty; the intermediate appellate court reversed both rulings for lack of privity.

## Issues

1. Whether a consumer lacking direct contractual privity may recover damages from a manufacturer for breach of an express warranty created by the manufacturer’s affirmative product representations communicated through the retailer.
2. Whether a consumer may revoke acceptance under UCC § 2-608 directly against a manufacturer that was not the direct seller.

## Decision

- The supreme court affirmed in part and reversed in part the intermediate appellate decision.
- The court held the manufacturer could be liable for damages for breach of an express warranty based on its affirmative representations intended to reach and relied on by the consumers, despite the absence of privity.
- The court held revocation of acceptance under UCC § 2-608 is available only against the direct “seller,” not a remote manufacturer, and therefore could not be maintained against the manufacturer.

## Legal Principles

- An express warranty arises from an affirmation of fact or promise relating to goods that becomes part of the basis of the bargain.
- A remote manufacturer’s affirmative representations, made to induce consumer purchases and communicated through a retailer, may be enforceable by the ultimate consumer for damages when relied upon, even without privity.
- Revocation of acceptance under UCC § 2-608 is a remedy against the contractual seller and does not extend to a non-selling manufacturer in the distribution chain.

## Conclusion

The court permitted consumers to recover express-warranty damages from a manufacturer whose product representations were intended to influence and did influence the purchase, but limited revocation of acceptance to the retail seller who actually sold the goods.


Alberti v. Manufactured Homes, Inc., 329 N.C. 727, 407 S.E.2d 819 (N.C. 1991)