NC · jury_instructions
N.C.P.I.—Civil 741.16
WARRANTIES IN SALES OF GOODS - ISSUE OF SELLER'S DEFENSE OF MODIFICATION OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY.
The (state number) issue reads:
"Did the defendant modify the implied warranty of merchantability
in the sale of the (name good) to the plaintiff?"
You will answer this issue only if you have answered the (state
number) issue "Yes" in favor of the plaintiff.
On this issue the burden of proof is on the defendant. This means
that the defendant must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence,
that the defendant modified the implied warranty of merchantability in
the sale of the (name good) to the plaintiff.
A seller modifies1 the implied warranty of merchantability by
making a change2 to it in which the word "merchantability"3 is actually
used.
Finally, as to this (state number) issue on which the defendant has
the burden of proof, if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that
the defendant modified the implied warranty of merchantability in the
sale of the (name good) to the plaintiff, then it would be your duty to
answer this issue "Yes" in favor of the defendant.
If, on the other hand, you fail to so find, then it would be your duty
to answer this issue "No" in favor of the plaintiff.
History
N.C.P.I.—Civil 741.16 (May 1999). Prepared by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges' Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, assisted by the UNC School of Government; published by the School of Government.
Provenance
- Source
- sog.unc.edu
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
21daadcf8ad4011e5415303c916ee1f9efa65858a8d9d2e46f79d85a468cd31f
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.