## Facts

- A buyer consulted a jeweler about purchasing a diamond bracelet as a gift; the agreed price was $15,000.
- The jeweler arranged for a written appraisal, signed by the jeweler, and delivered it with the bracelet at the time of sale.
- The appraisal stated it was an estimate “for insurance purposes only” of replacement cost, and it described the bracelet as containing diamonds of “v.v.s. quality,” with an appraisal value of $25,000.
- After the purchase and delivery, the buyers learned the diamonds were not v.v.s. quality but of a lower grade.
- The jeweler refused to replace the bracelet with one conforming to the v.v.s. description but offered to refund the purchase price.
- The buyers sued for breach of express warranty under U.C.C. § 2-313 and sought specific performance (a conforming replacement).

## Issues

1. Whether the appraisal’s statement that the diamonds were “v.v.s. quality” was a description of the goods that created an express warranty under U.C.C. § 2-313(1)(b).
2. Whether the “v.v.s. quality” description was part of the basis of the bargain when the buyers did not learn of the description until after payment and delivery.
3. Whether the appraisal’s “for insurance purposes only” language prevented the description from operating as an express warranty.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed and remanded.
- The court held the “v.v.s. quality” statement was a factual, technical grade description and created an express warranty that the bracelet would conform to that description.
- The court held buyer reliance is not an element of an express warranty claim under § 2-313; a descriptive statement can be part of the basis of the bargain absent clear proof to the contrary, even if the buyer did not know of it at the moment of payment.
- The “for insurance purposes only” language addressed valuation for replacement-cost purposes and did not negate the factual quality description.
- Because the trial court found the diamonds were not v.v.s. quality, the case was remanded for determination of the proper damages remedy.

## Legal Principles

- Under U.C.C. § 2-313(1)(b), any description of the goods that is part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods will conform to the description.
- Technical grade classifications stated as fact (rather than commendation) can constitute warranting descriptions.
- Proof of buyer reliance is not required to establish an express warranty under § 2-313; descriptive statements connected to the transaction are generally treated as part of the basis of the bargain unless rebutted by clear affirmative proof.
- A disclaimer or qualifier directed to value (e.g., “insurance purposes only”) does not, without more, negate a separate factual description of quality.

## Conclusion

The court held that the jeweler’s written diamond-grade description constituted an express warranty and that the buyers were not required to prove reliance for the description to be part of the bargain; the matter was remanded to award damages for the nonconforming bracelet.


Daughtrey v. Ashe, 413 S.E.2d 336 (Va. 1992)