## Facts

- Rachel E. Hebron purchased a 1991 Isuzu Trooper in December 1990.
- In June 1991, while driving on Interstate 395 in Alexandria, Virginia, Hebron braked and steered to avoid an unidentified vehicle that abruptly cut into her lane; the Trooper swerved and rolled over, causing permanent injuries.
- Hebron alleged the Trooper was unfit for ordinary highway use and that American Isuzu Motors, Inc. breached the implied warranty of merchantability under Virginia’s U.C.C.
- Hebron did not notify Isuzu of any alleged breach until July 12, 1993, when Isuzu received service of her complaint.
- By the time notice was provided, Hebron had disposed of the vehicle, preventing Isuzu from inspecting it.

## Issues

1. Whether Virginia Code § 8.2-607(3)(a)’s requirement that a “buyer” give notice of breach within a reasonable time applies to retail consumers as well as merchant buyers.
2. Whether a two-year delay in providing notice—first given through filing suit after disposal of the product—was unreasonable as a matter of law, barring any warranty remedy.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for American Isuzu Motors, Inc.
- The court held Virginia Code § 8.2-607(3)(a) applies to all buyers, including retail consumers.
- The court held Hebron’s two-year delay in notice, combined with disposal of the vehicle and resulting inability to inspect, was unreasonable as a matter of law.
- Because reasonable notice is a statutory condition to any remedy, Hebron’s failure to comply barred her implied-warranty claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under Virginia Code § 8.2-607(3)(a), a buyer who discovers or should discover a breach must notify the seller within a reasonable time or be barred from any remedy.
- The statute’s term “buyer” is not limited to merchants; the notice requirement applies to consumer and merchant purchasers alike.
- Although reasonableness of notice is often a fact question, a substantial, unexplained delay may be unreasonable as a matter of law when undisputed facts show prejudice to the seller.
- Notice serves to allow timely investigation, potential settlement, and defense preparation before the product is altered, disposed of, or becomes unavailable.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that consumer plaintiffs asserting U.C.C. implied-warranty claims must provide the seller reasonable notice of breach, and that a two-year delay in first notifying the seller through service of the complaint—after disposing of the product—was unreasonable as a matter of law and barred recovery.


Hebron v. Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc., 60 F.3d 1095 (4th Cir. 1995)