Benefiting From Warranties in Third-Party Contracts
In a procurement context, warranties provided by the seller to the buyer typically include promises about the quality and usability of goods or services.
April 10, 2015 at 10:25 AM
5 minute read
This is part of a series of articles on transactional contracts issues by Prof. Michael L. Bloom and students in the Transactional Lab at the University of Michigan Law School.
Between sophisticated parties in a commercial transaction, warranties usually are negotiated terms that are expressly included in the contract. In a procurement context, warranties provided by the seller to the buyer typically include promises about the quality and usability of goods or services.
In these deals, a procuring party (“Buyer”) might find itself in the middle of a complex supply chain, with (1) upstream sellers (“Upstream Sellers”) providing goods or services to the seller (“Seller”) that the Seller incorporates in the goods or services it provides the Buyer and (2) other buyers (“Other Buyers”) purchasing goods or services from the Seller similar to those the Seller provides the Buyer. If so, a Buyer may seek to include in its contract with a Seller one or both of:
|- a “pass-through” provision, seeking to obtain warranty rights provided to the Seller by Upstream Sellers; and
- a “most-favored” provision, seeking to obtain warranty rights provided by the Seller to Other Buyers.
Pass-Through Warranties
For procurement deals occurring in the middle of a supply chain, an Upstream Seller is likely to have made warranties to a Seller regarding goods or services, or components of goods or services, that the Seller provides to a Buyer. The Buyer may wish to receive the benefit of the warranties made by the Upstream Seller—that is, for the Seller to “pass through” these warranties made by the Upstream Seller to the Buyer, such that the Buyer has these warranty rights against the Upstream Seller. Whether the Seller can effectively accomplish this turns on what rights it has under its contract with the Upstream Seller, and whether that contract states an intention to benefit the Buyer or give the Seller the right to provide warranty rights on the Upstream Seller's behalf.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250