## Facts

- A buyer purchased a Bayliner 3486 Trophy Convertible sport-fishing boat from an exclusive dealer after a brief demonstration ride in which speed was not tested.
- The dealer’s sales representative consulted the manufacturer’s dealer manual “prop matrixes,” which listed a 30 mph maximum speed for the model under specified propeller sizes and limited loading assumptions, and included a disclaimer stating the data was “for comparative purposes only.”
- The representative also showed a manufacturer brochure stating the model “delivers the kind of performance you need to get to the prime offshore fishing grounds.”
- The buyer purchased the boat for about $120,000, expecting it would reach 30 mph and be suitable for offshore fishing based on these materials.
- The delivered boat had a different propeller configuration than the one associated with the 30 mph listing and carried additional installed equipment adding more than 2,000 pounds beyond the matrix’s stated assumptions.
- The boat initially reached about 17 mph; the manufacturer later indicated expected maximum speed would be about 23–25 mph under normal conditions.
- The buyer claimed the lower speed reduced offshore fishing time, but he nonetheless logged more than 850 hours of operation, much of it offshore.
- The buyer sued the manufacturer for breach of express warranty and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose under the U.C.C.
- After a bench trial, the trial court ruled for the buyer and awarded roughly $135,000 in damages (including ownership-related costs).
- The manufacturer appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the warranty findings.

## Issues

1. Whether the prop matrixes and brochure created an express warranty that the buyer’s boat would achieve 30 mph or otherwise provide a specific level of offshore-fishing performance.
2. Whether the boat’s failure to reach 30 mph constituted a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
3. Whether the manufacturer breached an implied warranty of fitness for the buyer’s particular purpose of obtaining a sufficiently fast offshore-fishing boat.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the judgment for the buyer and entered judgment for the manufacturer.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to prove breach of an express warranty.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to prove breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to prove breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

## Legal Principles

- An express warranty requires an affirmation of fact or promise relating to the goods that becomes part of the basis of the bargain; generalized product data tied to different configurations and qualified by disclaimers may not constitute a warranty as to the specific item sold.
- Statements in promotional materials that are broad and non-measurable are treated as opinion or puffery, not enforceable express warranties.
- Implied merchantability focuses on fitness for ordinary purposes; a plaintiff must show departure from trade standards or unfitness for ordinary use, not merely unmet expectations about performance.
- Implied fitness for a particular purpose requires proof that the seller knew the buyer’s particular purpose, knew the buyer was relying on the seller’s skill or judgment, and that the buyer in fact relied; absent clear communication of a specific performance requirement, the warranty is not established.

## Conclusion

The court rejected warranty liability for a boat’s lower-than-expected speed where the cited speed figure was qualified, based on different assumptions than the buyer’s boat, and the brochure’s performance language was non-specific, and where the buyer failed to prove unmerchantability or the elements required for a fitness-for-particular-purpose warranty.


Bayliner Marine Corp. v. Crow, 509 S.E.2d 499 (Va. 1999)