## Facts

- Anthony Avola was an experienced carpenter who went to a Home Depot store to buy siding for a shed.
- Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. sold LP SmartSide, a composite-wood siding product manufactured by Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (LP).
- LP’s website stated that SmartSide products “work[] and cut just like traditional wood, taking nails and screws with ease.”
- Avola initially selected T1-11 wood siding, a product he had used before, and was about to leave.
- A Home Depot sales associate suggested Avola try LP SmartSide instead, stating that it “nails just like wood,” “works as easy as traditional wood siding,” and could be installed the same way as T1-11.
- Avola had not previously heard of SmartSide and had not seen LP’s website statement before buying.
- Avola bought SmartSide and began installing it by nailing panels to the shed.
- During installation, nails did not stay in place as expected, and Avola had to hammer nails more than once.
- After Avola had driven roughly 100 nails, a nail ricocheted into his eye, causing serious injury.
- Avola sued LP and Home Depot asserting breach of express warranty and false advertising, and defendants moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether LP’s performance statement that SmartSide “work[s] and cut[s] just like traditional wood, taking nails and screws with ease” could constitute an express warranty (rather than nonactionable sales talk) and, if so, whether fact disputes on breach and causation barred summary judgment for LP.
2. Whether Home Depot could be held liable for breach of express warranty or false advertising based on its employee’s oral statements during the sale.
3. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to keep their false-advertising theory in the case at the summary-judgment stage.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part.
- The court granted summary judgment to Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and directed the clerk to terminate the action against Home Depot.
- The court denied summary judgment to Louisiana-Pacific on the core theory tied to LP’s representation that SmartSide would perform like traditional wood and would take nails and screws “with ease,” finding triable issues that required a jury determination.
- The court directed that “Home Depot Store #1202” be removed from the caption as a non-existent entity.

## Legal Principles

- Under UCC § 2-313 (as applied in New York), an express warranty may arise from an affirmation of fact or promise relating to goods that becomes part of the basis of the bargain.
- Statements about concrete product performance characteristics can be actionable warranty language when they are specific enough to be tested as true or false; vague, purely subjective praise is more likely to be treated as puffery.
- For “basis of the bargain,” a plaintiff need not always show fraud-style reliance on a particular written statement; warranties may be shown through evidence that the seller’s representations were the kind of statements that would naturally affect a purchase decision and were communicated in connection with the sale (including through a retailer’s sales pitch echoing the manufacturer’s message).
- Summary judgment is improper where the record would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the product did not conform to the warranted characteristics and that the alleged nonconformity was a proximate cause of the injury.

## Conclusion

The court treated LP’s “works like traditional wood” and “taking nails and screws with ease” message as the type of performance claim that could support an express-warranty theory and found fact questions on nonconformity and causation that prevented summary judgment for LP, while granting summary judgment to Home Depot and removing “Home Depot Store #1202” from the case caption.


Avola v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 81 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 509 (2013)