## Facts

- Singer purchased industrial paint from Du Pont for use in a new electrodeposition paint system at Singer’s Red Bud, Illinois plant.
- Du Pont knew Singer’s intended use: paint suitable for electrodeposition coating of Singer’s air-conditioner and furnace components and consistent with Singer’s quality requirements.
- Du Pont participated in installation and start-up of the system and worked for approximately six months attempting to correct persistent finishing defects.
- From initial operation, parts frequently emerged from the paint tank with blotches and streaks, requiring repainting and causing production losses.
- Singer removed Du Pont’s paint and replaced it with Sherwin-Williams paint; the finishing defects largely ceased after the substitution.
- Singer sued Du Pont for breach of warranty and sought damages for its losses; Du Pont asserted counterclaims.
- The case was submitted to the jury only on implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; the jury awarded Singer $108,367 and denied Du Pont’s counterclaims.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a finding that Du Pont breached an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose under U.C.C. § 2-315 by supplying paint not suitable for Singer’s electrodeposition system and requirements.
2. Whether express specifications or warranties in the parties’ arrangements displaced, negated, or excluded any implied warranty of fitness.
3. Whether the jury instructions and the evidence supported the verdict for Singer and the denial of Du Pont’s post-trial motions and counterclaims.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Singer and the denial of Du Pont’s counterclaims.
- The court held there was substantial evidence that Du Pont had reason to know Singer’s particular purpose and that Singer relied on Du Pont’s skill and judgment in furnishing suitable paint.
- The court held the evidence supported a finding that Du Pont’s paint was not fit for the particular purpose, including the persistent defects with Du Pont paint and the cessation of defects after changing to another supplier’s paint.
- The court rejected the argument that express warranties or specifications automatically eliminated the implied warranty of fitness, concluding the implied warranty was not clearly and conspicuously excluded and was not inconsistent with express terms.
- The court found no reversible error in the jury instructions and upheld the denial of JNOV and a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Under U.C.C. § 2-315, an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose arises when the seller has reason to know the buyer’s particular purpose and the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment to furnish suitable goods.
- Whether an implied warranty of fitness exists, and whether it is breached, are fact questions for the jury when supported by substantial evidence on knowledge, reliance, causation, and performance.
- Express and implied warranties are generally cumulative; an express warranty or specifications do not, by themselves, negate an implied warranty of fitness.
- An implied warranty of fitness is excluded only by contract language that clearly and conspicuously disclaims it, or where an express warranty is irreconcilably inconsistent with the implied warranty.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a jury verdict that Du Pont breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose by supplying paint that failed in Singer’s electrodeposition system, and it held that any express terms did not clearly exclude the implied warranty or require overturning the verdict.


Singer Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 579 F.2d 433 (8th Cir. 1978)