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

P purchased a brand new television set from D in May 1988. In June 1989, the set began to turn off by itself, although the picture would come on. P called D and was told that his set was out of warranty, but was given the name of a repairman. P called the repairman, who requested that he look for someone else. to repair the set. Two months later, the set did not turn on at all. P called D, and a salesperson repeated that the set was out of warranty and that P. P requested that the manager call him the next morning. P called again and talked to Ray Picard. Picard stated that its only obligation was to provide the name of a repairman and that the store would charge P for any work that it might do on the set. Attorney Wade called Picard, who repeated that the express warranty was the store's only obligation. P sued for a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and violation of the UTPA (Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act). The District Court found that D had breached the implied warranty of merchantability and violated the UTPA. It awarded costs to repair and attorney fees. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment but refused the attorney fees. D appealed.

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.