## Facts

- Elliot McCurdy purchased a boat manufactured by Texar, Inc.
- McCurdy alleged the boat was defective and sought relief for warranty-related defects.
- No written warranty accompanied the boat at the time of sale.
- McCurdy filed suit against Texar under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, relying on 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d), which authorizes consumer suits for failure to comply with obligations under the Act or under a “written warranty, implied warranty, or service contract.”
- McCurdy’s theory relied on implied warranties recognized by state law (such as the implied warranty of merchantability), rather than any express written warranty.
- The trial court ruled that the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act was unavailable because the Act applied only when a written warranty existed and did not extend to implied-warranty-only claims.
- McCurdy appealed to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

## Issues

1. Whether the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1), authorizes a consumer action for breach of state-law implied warranties when the product was sold without any written warranty.
2. Whether a written warranty is a prerequisite to invoking Magnuson–Moss remedies for an alleged breach of implied warranty.

## Decision

- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that Magnuson–Moss permits a consumer to sue under § 2310(d)(1) for breach of implied warranties, even when no written warranty was provided.
- The court rejected the trial court’s reading that the Act is limited to transactions involving written warranties, concluding that the statute’s text expressly includes “implied warranty” as an independent basis for suit.
- The court treated implied warranties as those arising under applicable state law and enforceable through Magnuson–Moss’s federal cause of action and remedies.

## Legal Principles

- 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1) authorizes a consumer who is damaged by a supplier’s failure to comply with obligations “under this chapter, or under a written warranty, implied warranty, or service contract” to bring suit for damages and other legal and equitable relief.
- The Act’s reference to “implied warranty” means implied-warranty claims are not conditioned on the existence of a written warranty.
- Magnuson–Moss does not create implied warranties by itself; it relies on implied warranties that arise under state law in connection with the sale of a consumer product (see 15 U.S.C. § 2301(7)).
- A court errs by treating the absence of a written warranty as a categorical bar to a Magnuson–Moss claim when the plaintiff alleges breach of an implied warranty recognized by state law.

## Conclusion

McCurdy v. Texar, Inc. holds that a consumer may bring a Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act claim based on breach of state-law implied warranties even when the product was sold without any written warranty; the Fourth District reversed the contrary trial-court ruling and remanded for further proceedings.


McCurdy v. Texar, Inc., 575 So.2d 299 (1991)