## Facts

- Upton Tyson, a Cumberland County farmer, sought an herbicide suitable for no-till soybean planting.
- Tyson consulted Farm Chemical Corporation, initially requesting other herbicides, but Farm Chemical recommended Dual 8E, manufactured by Ciba-Geigy Corporation, as a less expensive option.
- A Farm Chemical sales representative advised Tyson that Dual 8E would “do a good job” and instructed him to apply it in a tank mix with Paraquat and a surfactant for the no-till use, despite the Dual 8E label not describing that method.
- Tyson followed the recommended mixture and application approach, but weed control was poor and soybean yield suffered.
- Tyson sued Ciba-Geigy and Farm Chemical asserting breach of express warranty and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose under UCC Article 2, later seeking to add negligence and pursuing an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Tyson’s motions to amend the complaint to add a negligence claim, including a Rule 15(b) motion based on alleged implied consent.
2. Whether a directed verdict for Ciba-Geigy was proper on Tyson’s express warranty and implied warranty of fitness claims.
3. Whether a directed verdict for Farm Chemical was proper on the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim.
4. Whether the unfair and deceptive trade practices claim was properly handled given the evidence and the disposition of the warranty claims.

## Decision

- The court affirmed denial of Tyson’s pretrial and Rule 15(b) motions to amend to add negligence, finding no abuse of discretion.
- The court affirmed the directed verdict for Ciba-Geigy on express warranty and implied warranty of fitness claims.
- The court reversed the directed verdict for Farm Chemical on the implied warranty of fitness claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court indicated the unfair and deceptive trade practices claim required further consideration on remand in light of the reinstated implied warranty theory against Farm Chemical.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court has broad discretion under Rule 15(a) to allow or deny late amendments; appellate review requires a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
- Rule 15(b) implied consent is not shown merely because evidence relevant to an unpleaded issue is admitted without objection when that evidence is also relevant to pleaded issues; the parties must understand the evidence is directed to the unpleaded claim.
- Under UCC § 2-315, an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose may arise when the seller has reason to know the buyer’s particular purpose and the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods.
- A manufacturer is not liable on an express warranty theory absent a specific affirmation attributable to the manufacturer that becomes part of the basis of the bargain.
- An implied warranty of fitness claim may fail against a manufacturer where the buyer uses the product in a manner not described by the manufacturer’s directions and where a conspicuous, effective disclaimer negates implied warranties.
- A dealer who recommends a product and a specific application method tailored to the buyer’s disclosed purpose may face implied fitness liability if the recommendation proves unsuitable.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the trial court’s refusal to add a negligence claim and affirmed judgment for the manufacturer because the farmer did not follow labeled directions and the manufacturer effectively disclaimed implied warranties, but it held that the dealer’s tailored, off-label recommendation created a jury question on implied warranty of fitness and remanded for further proceedings, including reconsideration of the unfair and deceptive trade practices claim.


Tyson v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 347 S.E.2d 473 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986)