## Facts

- James N. Kinlaw purchased a new farm tractor and attachments from Sessions Farm Machinery, Inc., an authorized dealer of Long Manufacturing N.C., Inc.
- Long provided an owner’s manual with an express warranty to the “new owner” that each tractor sold by Long’s authorized dealers would be free from defects in materials and workmanship.
- The tractor allegedly began malfunctioning immediately in farm use, and various parts were alleged to be defective, inoperative, or missing.
- Kinlaw returned parts to Long’s factory for repair or replacement; Long allegedly failed or refused to repair or replace them.
- Kinlaw sought damages for economic losses allegedly caused by the warranty breach.
- The parties stipulated that Kinlaw had no contractual privity with Long because the sale was through the dealer.

## Issues

1. Whether lack of contractual privity between an ultimate purchaser and a manufacturer bars an action for breach of a manufacturer’s express warranty contained in materials furnished with the product and directed to the purchaser.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the dismissal and the Court of Appeals’ affirmance.
- The court held that lack of privity does not bar an express-warranty claim when the manufacturer’s warranty is addressed to and intended to benefit the ultimate purchaser.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings; other defenses (including disclaimer or limitation issues) were not decided at the pleading stage because the dismissal rested solely on privity.

## Legal Principles

- Contractual privity is not a prerequisite to an ultimate purchaser’s claim against a manufacturer for breach of an express warranty when the warranty is directed to and intended for the purchaser or user.
- A manufacturer that voluntarily extends an express warranty to the ultimate purchaser may be sued directly on that undertaking even if the product is sold through an independent dealer.
- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion limited to privity, courts do not resolve separate questions such as warranty disclaimers, limitations, or other defenses.

## Conclusion

Because the manufacturer’s written warranty was expressly directed to the tractor’s “new owner,” the ultimate purchaser could pursue a breach of express warranty claim despite the absence of contractual privity, and dismissal on privity grounds was improper.


Kinlaw v. Long Mfg. N.C., Inc., 298 N.C. 494, 259 S.E.2d 552 (N.C. 1979)