CACI 3212 Duration of Implied Warranty
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
3212 Duration of Implied Warranty
An implied warranty is in effect for one year after the sale of the [consumer good], unless a shorter period is stated in a writing that comes with the [consumer good], provided that the shorter period is reasonable. In no event will an implied warranty be in effect for less than 60 days.
[The time period of an implied warranty is lengthened by the number of days that the [consumer good] was made available by [name of plaintiff] for repairs under the warranty, including any delays caused by circumstances beyond [name of plaintiff]’s control].
Directions for Use
If the consumer goods at issue are not new, the instruction must be modified to reflect the shorter implied warranty period provided in Civil Code section 1795.5(c) (i.e., no less than 30 days but no more than three months).
Sources and Authority
•Duration of Implied Warranties. Civil Code section 1791.1(c).
•Tolling of Warranty Period for Nonconforming Goods. Civil Code section 1795.6.
•Distributor or Seller of Used Consumer Goods. Civil Code section 1795.5.
•“On appeal, [defendants] concede that the duration provision is not a statute of limitations and that the applicable statute of limitations is four years. They argue, however, that the judgment can be affirmed on other grounds. Among other arguments, they contend that the duration provision of the Song-Beverly Act should be interpreted as barring an action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability when the purchaser fails to discover and report the defect to the seller within the time period specified in that provision. We reject this argument because the plain language of the statute, particularly in light of the consumer protection policies supporting the Song-Beverly Act, make clear that the statute merely creates a limited, prospective duration for the implied warranty of merchantability; it does not create a deadline for discovering latent defects or for giving notice to the seller.” (Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1301 [95 Cal.Rptr.3d 285].)