## Facts

- Geraldine Maybank bought a sealed package of three “Blue Dot” flashcubes from S.S. Kresge Co. (K-Mart) in Greensboro, North Carolina, shortly before traveling to New York in July 1972.
- The carton warned that a damaged flashcube might shatter; Maybank observed no damage when she opened the package about a week later.
- Maybank used the first flashcube to take four photos without incident.
- She placed the second flashcube on the camera; when she pressed the shutter, the flashcube exploded.
- The explosion knocked off her glasses and badly cut the corner of her left eye, causing temporary blindness; she was hospitalized for a week, missed three weeks of work, and reported continuing eye fatigue and difficulty reading.
- Maybank sued K-Mart alleging negligence, strict liability, and breach of express and implied warranties, including implied warranty of merchantability; K-Mart impleaded the manufacturer, but that third-party claim was severed and not part of the appeal.
- The trial court directed a verdict for K-Mart at the close of Maybank’s evidence; the court of appeals reversed as to implied warranty of merchantability, and the state supreme court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether Maybank produced sufficient evidence that she gave K-Mart “seasonable notification” of the alleged breach as required by U.C.C. § 2-607(3)(a), making directed verdict on notice improper.
2. Whether Maybank presented sufficient evidence of breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, including that the flashcube was defective when sold, to submit the claim to the jury.
3. Whether a defect and causation may be proven by circumstantial evidence when the product is destroyed in the incident.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the court of appeals and held the directed verdict was improper on the implied warranty of merchantability claim.
- The court held the buyer bears the burden to plead and prove seasonable notice, but the evidence allowed a reasonable jury to find Maybank gave seasonable notification.
- The court held Maybank’s evidence permitted a reasonable inference that the flashcube was unmerchantable when sold and that the defect proximately caused her injuries, even though the flashcube was destroyed.
- The case was remanded for a new trial on the implied warranty of merchantability claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under U.C.C. § 2-607(3)(a), the buyer must plead and prove “seasonable notification” of breach as a condition to warranty recovery.
- Whether notice is “seasonable” is generally a fact question for the jury; it is not limited to immediate notice as a matter of law.
- Implied warranty of merchantability (U.C.C. § 2-314) requires goods to be fit for their ordinary purposes and merchantable at the time of sale.
- A product defect and breach of merchantability may be established by circumstantial evidence, particularly where the product is unavailable, if the evidence supports an inference of malfunction during ordinary, foreseeable use that would not ordinarily occur absent a defect.
- On a directed verdict motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with reasonable inferences drawn in that party’s favor.

## Conclusion

The court held that Maybank’s evidence was sufficient for a jury to decide both seasonable notice and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability based on circumstantial proof of an abnormal malfunction during ordinary use; therefore, the directed verdict for the retailer was reversed and the case remanded for trial on that warranty claim.


Maybank v. S.S. Kresge Co., 302 N.C. 129, 273 S.E.2d 681 (N.C. 1981)