CT · jury_instructions
Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 5.3-1
Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose - General Statutes § 42a-2-315
The plaintiff alleges the defendant breached an implied warranty of merchantability in that the
<identify the good> was not fit for a particular purpose. This warranty is not an explicit part of a
contract, that is, it is not a written part of the contract between the parties. Rather, it is a duty
imposed by law and thus is implied even if there is no written agreement for such a warranty.
Any agreement for the sale of goods contains an implied warranty that the goods sold are fit for a
particular purpose if the plaintiff proves the following three conditions:
1. the defendant had reason to know of the plaintiff’s particular purpose;
2. the defendant had reason to know that the plaintiff was relying on (his/her/its)
skill
and judgment; and
3. the plaintiff actually relied on the defendant’s skill and judgment.
If the plaintiff has proven all of these conditions by a preponderance of the evidence, and if
(he/she/it) proves that (he/she/it) suffered damages caused by this conduct, you must find the
defendant liable to (him/her/it).
Provenance
- Source
- jud.ct.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-23
- Edition
- 2026-08-23
- Content hash
15ca3b72d6f7fc745b1688840589b69b8b50b0460fb2a2fd8d6e0310731106d1
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.