## Facts

- Consumers purchased 1994–1996 Chevrolet Impala SS vehicles from authorized dealers.
- The vehicles’ window stickers represented that the cars included a “full size spare.”
- Owner’s manuals warned not to mix tire sizes and depicted the spare as part of the regular tire-rotation pattern.
- The spare tire provided was approximately two inches smaller than the regular tires and was made by a different manufacturer.
- Plaintiffs alleged GM’s “full size spare” description and related documentation misrepresented the spare’s equivalence to the regular tires.
- Plaintiffs asserted multiple theories; the court treated Count I as including a breach-of-express-warranty theory and addressed that theory at summary judgment.
- Evidence showed that at least one plaintiff did not provide GM notice of the alleged breach before filing suit, while another plaintiff had evidence supporting notice.

## Issues

1. Whether GM’s statements and documentation (including the window sticker and owner’s manual) could create an express warranty that the vehicle included a “full size spare.”
2. Whether U.C.C. § 2-607 requires a buyer to give the seller reasonable pre-suit notice of breach as a condition precedent to an express-warranty remedy.
3. Whether filing a lawsuit, without earlier communication to the seller, satisfies the U.C.C. notice requirement.
4. Whether the notice requirement was met (or excused) for each plaintiff such that summary judgment was appropriate on the express-warranty claim.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to GM on the express-warranty claim for the plaintiff who failed to provide pre-suit notice of breach.
- The court denied summary judgment to GM on the express-warranty claim for the plaintiff whose record evidence could satisfy (or create a triable issue on) the notice requirement.
- The court recognized that the “full size spare” representation and related materials were capable of constituting an express warranty, but enforced the U.C.C. notice prerequisite on a plaintiff-by-plaintiff basis.

## Legal Principles

- Under U.C.C. § 2-313, an affirmation of fact or description of goods that becomes part of the basis of the bargain can create an express warranty.
- Under U.C.C. § 2-607, a buyer must, within a reasonable time after discovering (or when they should have discovered) a breach, notify the seller or be barred from any remedy on a warranty claim.
- In the applicable jurisdiction, pre-suit notice is treated as a condition precedent to recovery for breach of warranty.
- Filing suit is not, by itself, sufficient notice under § 2-607; notice is intended to allow investigation, potential cure, and possible resolution before litigation.

## Conclusion

The court held that even if GM’s “full size spare” representations could constitute an express warranty, a buyer who fails to provide reasonable pre-suit notice of breach under U.C.C. § 2-607 is barred from pursuing an express-warranty remedy, warranting summary judgment for GM as to that buyer.


Hobbs v. Gen. Motors Corp., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (M.D. Ala. 2001)