## Facts

- Paul Suminski bought a new television from Maine Appliance Warehouse, Inc. for $713.97 in May 1988.
- About 13 months later, the television began turning off by itself but would temporarily resume functioning if turned off and on.
- Maine Appliance told Suminski the set was out of warranty and provided a repairperson’s name; that repairperson declined the job.
- About two months later, the television would not turn on at all.
- Suminski contacted Maine Appliance again and was told he would need to speak with a manager.
- Manager Ray Picard told Suminski the store’s only obligation was to provide a repairperson’s name and that the store would charge for any work it performed.
- After Suminski retained counsel, Picard repeated that the written express warranty was the store’s only obligation, claimed he had never heard of an implied warranty of merchantability, and ended the call when asked to consult counsel.
- Suminski sued in Maine District Court for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA).
- The District Court awarded a full refund and $1,000 in attorney’s fees; the Superior Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that the television was not merchantable at the time of sale, establishing a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-314.
2. Whether the retailer’s statements and handling of the complaint—asserting the express warranty was its only obligation and dismissing implied-warranty rights—constituted an unfair or deceptive act under the UTPA.

## Decision

- The Law Court rejected the retailer’s challenge to the UTPA finding.
- The Law Court held the evidence insufficient to prove breach of the implied warranty of merchantability because it did not show the television was unmerchantable when sold.
- The Law Court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings because the damages award rested on both theories and could not stand once the warranty finding was set aside.

## Legal Principles

- To prove breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-314, the plaintiff must show the goods were not fit for ordinary purposes at the time of sale.
- A product’s malfunction after substantial post-sale use, without evidence linking the failure to a defect existing at sale, is insufficient to establish non-merchantability at sale.
- Under the UTPA, a merchant’s misstatements or misleading conduct about a consumer’s statutory warranty rights may constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice, independent of proof that the product was defective at sale.
- When a judgment rests on multiple liability theories and one theory lacks evidentiary support, the resulting damages award may be vacated and remanded for reconsideration consistent with the remaining findings.

## Conclusion

The court required proof that the television was unmerchantable when sold to sustain an implied-warranty judgment and vacated the award for lack of that proof, while leaving undisturbed the finding that the retailer’s representations about warranty obligations could violate the UTPA.


Suminski v. Me. Appliance Warehouse, Inc., 602 A.2d 1173 (Me. 1992)