## Facts

- Plasan Carbon Composites, Inc. entered into a contract to purchase tools from Weber Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.
- A dispute arose concerning Weber’s performance under the contract and the quality of the tools supplied.
- In the litigation, Plasan asserted that statements on Weber’s website created express warranties about the tools.
- The cited website statements included broad assurances such as:
  - Weber “is committed to producing high quality tools that meet or exceed all customer requirements;”
  - Weber provides “total customer satisfaction through every stage of the project;”
  - Weber is committed to “total customer satisfaction in all aspects of our business,” and holds itself to “the highest standards for superior quality” and “world-class value.”
- The cited website statements also included more concrete, process-based and measurable assertions, including:
  - “Certified dimensional accuracy is critical on all of our projects;”
  - “Every tool we supply is fully inspected, using one of our in-house CMM machines;”
  - “All critical mold features are checked to customer supplied CAD part data;”
  - “Comprehensive inspection reports are provided to satisfy a wide variety of customer specifications.”
- Weber denied that the website statements created any express warranty and filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence and argument about those website statements at trial.

## Issues

1. Whether Weber’s website statements could qualify as “affirmations of fact or promise” (rather than mere seller opinion) that may create an express warranty in connection with the tooling contract.
2. Whether generalized website assurances about quality and customer satisfaction are nonactionable puffery that cannot support an express-warranty claim.
3. Whether specific website representations about inspection practices and certified dimensional accuracy are specific enough to be treated as potential express-warranty statements, subject to proof that they became part of the basis of the bargain.

## Decision

- The court granted Weber’s motion in limine in part, holding that broad, generalized website assurances about quality, meeting requirements, and customer satisfaction were puffery and could not create an express warranty.
- The court denied the motion in part as to more specific website representations describing inspection methods and certified dimensional accuracy, allowing Plasan to present evidence of those statements as potential express-warranty representations.
- The court left for trial (and the factfinder) questions tied to whether the specific website statements were connected to the parties’ transaction and formed part of the basis of the bargain.

## Legal Principles

- An express warranty may arise from an affirmation of fact, promise, or description relating to the goods that becomes part of the basis of the bargain; formal words such as “warrant” are not required.
- Vague, subjective statements of superiority, quality, or customer satisfaction are typically treated as puffery or opinion and do not create an express warranty.
- Specific, factual, and testable statements about product characteristics or quality-control processes (for example, representations about dimensional accuracy, inspection methods, or measurement tools) may constitute express-warranty statements, depending on the facts.
- On a motion in limine, a court may exclude categories of statements that are plainly puffery as a matter of law, but it generally should not use the motion to resolve fact questions about how the parties formed their agreement or what representations became part of the bargain.
- Evidence tied to a plausible express-warranty theory is generally admissible when it bears on what was represented about the goods and what the buyer claims it was promised, subject to ordinary limits on relevance and prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court treated Weber’s broad website language about quality and customer satisfaction as puffery and excluded it as a basis for express warranty, but permitted Plasan to rely on more concrete website statements about certified dimensional accuracy and inspection practices as possible express-warranty representations, subject to proof at trial that they were part of the basis of the parties’ deal.


Weber Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. Plasan Carbon Composites, Inc., 2016 WL 4073545 (2016)