P needed an electrodeposition paint system. D was contracted to provide P with paint for its approximately 22,000-gallon tank. P experienced problems with the electrodeposition system. Parts frequently emerged from the paint tank with 'blotches' and 'streaks.' Repainting was necessary. D, which supervised the installation and starting up of this electrodeposition system, tried unsuccessfully for six months to correct this problem. Finally, in April of 1974, D paint was removed from the tank and replaced with paint supplied by the Sherwin-Williams Company. This lawsuit was filed the following year. D maintained that the problem was with the substrate, pretreated part; P, however, insisted that the paint was at fault. P claims that D had given an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose by representing throughout the period in question that its paint would satisfy P's needs. Over D's objection, the trial court instructed the jury on implied warranty for a particular purpose. The issue of express warranty was not submitted. P got the verdict and D appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.