NC · jury_instructions
N.C.P.I.—Civil 741.25
WARRANTIES IN SALES OF GOODS-ISSUE OF EXISTENCE OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The (state number) issue reads:
"Did the defendant impliedly warrant to the plaintiff that the (name
good) was fit for a particular purpose required by the plaintiff?"1
On this issue the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means
that the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, two
things:
First, that, at the time of contracting, the defendant had reason to
know any particular purpose for which the (name good) was required by
the plaintiff.2
Second, that, at the time of contracting, the defendant had reason
to know that the plaintiff was relying on the defendant's skill or judgment
to select or furnish a suitable (name good).3
Finally, as to this (state number) issue on which the plaintiff has
the burden of proof, if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that
the defendant impliedly warranted to the plaintiff that the (name good)
was fit for a particular purpose required by the plaintiff, then it would be
your duty to answer this issue "Yes" in favor of the plaintiff.
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 defendant.
History
N.C.P.I.—Civil 741.25 (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
facba474c400e8e4dd79b4a8ff37fed86c8c1f6c8a62c7d9c680b47fceb96f9a
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.