## Facts

- The Gilberts bought a 2001 Safari Serengeti motorhome from an Arizona dealer on June 3, 2002, taking delivery in Arizona on June 6, 2002.
- The manufacturer, Monaco, issued a written limited warranty generally providing repair or replacement of defective parts and excluding incidental and consequential damages.
- At delivery, the Gilberts knew of several problems (including electrical issues and issues with certain installed components) but accepted the RV with an understanding that repairs would be made.
- After purchase, the Gilberts reported continuing problems, including persistent electrical malfunctions and sewage odor.
- By October 19, 2002, the RV allegedly remained parked at the Gilberts’ Georgia residence and was unusable due to the continuing problems.
- The Gilberts sought to revoke acceptance and demanded a refund, asserting Monaco failed to repair the RV within a reasonable time.
- The Gilberts retained an expert who identified multiple defects but could not explain the cause of all reported problems.
- The Gilberts sued for breach of written and implied warranties, revocation of acceptance under the UCC, and violations of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (MMWA).
- Monaco moved for summary judgment; the Gilberts moved for oral argument on that motion.

## Issues

1. Whether Arizona or Georgia law governed the UCC-based warranty and revocation claims where contracting and delivery occurred in Arizona but the RV was later kept and allegedly failed in Georgia.
2. Whether evidence of continuing defects and repair history created a triable issue that Monaco breached the written limited warranty and implied warranties.
3. Whether the Gilberts produced sufficient evidence to permit revocation of acceptance based on substantial impairment and failure to cure within a reasonable time.
4. Whether the MMWA claims survived to the extent the corresponding state-law warranty claims survived and what remedies were available given the limited warranty’s damages exclusions.

## Decision

- The court denied the Gilberts’ motion for oral argument.
- The court granted Monaco’s summary-judgment motion in part and denied it in part.
- The court applied Arizona law to the core UCC sales-related issues because the contract and delivery occurred in Arizona.
- The court enforced the limited warranty’s exclusion of incidental and consequential damages, restricting the remedies available on surviving warranty theories.
- The court allowed portions of the warranty and revocation claims (and the parallel MMWA claims) to proceed where the record showed genuine disputes about the existence and significance of defects, the adequacy of repair efforts, and whether the RV’s problems substantially impaired its value.

## Legal Principles

- In a multistate sale of goods dispute, the governing law may be the law of the state of contracting and delivery when that state has the most significant relationship to the transaction.
- A limited written warranty may restrict remedies to repair or replacement and may validly exclude incidental and consequential damages under applicable commercial law, subject to statutory constraints.
- Implied warranty claims may survive summary judgment where evidence supports a fact dispute about whether the goods, as a whole, were fit for ordinary purposes, even if some problems were known at acceptance and others emerged later.
- A buyer may revoke acceptance if nonconformities substantially impair the value of the goods and the buyer accepted on a reasonable expectation of cure that was not seasonably accomplished, or acceptance was induced by difficulty of discovering defects.
- MMWA warranty claims generally track underlying state-law warranty liability and remedies; federal claims proceed to the extent state-law warranty claims proceed, subject to enforceable warranty limitations.

## Conclusion

The court applied Arizona law to the RV sale and held that disputed facts about persistent defects, repair efforts, and substantial impairment prevented complete summary judgment against the Gilberts, while also enforcing the manufacturer’s limited-warranty restrictions on incidental and consequential damages and allowing the MMWA claims only to the extent the related state-law warranty claims survived.


Gilbert v. Monaco Coach Corp., 352 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (N.D. Ga. 2004)