UT · jury_instructions
MUJI 2d CV1027
Breach of Express Warranty. Objective standard to create an express warranty.
You must consider any [statement of fact/promise/description of the product] as a reasonable person would have understood it. If a reasonable person would have relied on the [statement/promise/description] in buying the [product], then you may find that the [statement/promise/description] created an express warranty.
In deciding whether a reasonable person would have relied on the [statement/promise/description], you should consider such facts as:
(1) the ability of a reasonable buyer to see and understand whether the [product] conformed to the [statement/promise/description];
(2) how specific or vague the [statement/promise/description] was; and
(3) how believable the [statement/promise/description] was.
Provenance
- Source
- legacy.utcourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-22
- Edition
- 2026-08-21
- Content hash
eaad61a0321d8c4d1f37ef8fbae70878d9e8704f08aefe7b8a841f1b57d3a3fb
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.