Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Commercial Transactions

Fungicide Label Withstands Breach of Warranty Claims

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Willems Farms, Inc. v. BASF Corp., No. CV F 08-0616 LJO SMS, 2008 WL 4104278 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff's claim for breach of written warranty. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant breached its written warranty for its fungicide which allegedly damaged a blueberry crop and blueberry bushes.

Background

The defendant, BASF Corporation, manufactured and distributed a fungicide that was designed to control blueberry fungus growth. Id. at *1. The plaintiff, an owner of a farming operation, applied Pristine, the defendant's fungicide product, to his blueberry bushes and claimed that Pristine destroyed his bushes and damaged his crop. Id. Pristine's label contained specific restrictions, limitations, and recommendations for its use, as well as section including conditions of sale and a warranty which stated that the buyer assumed a series of risks. Id. The listed risks that the buyer assumed included crop injury, product ineffectiveness, and other unintended consequences. Id. Additionally, the label expressly disclaimed all warranties in capital letters, except for a warranty that Pristine would conform to the chemical description on its label and was reasonably fit for its particular purpose. Id.

The instant court dismissed the plaintiff's original breach of warranty claims on the grounds that the limited warranty did not cover the alleged crop injury or the consequential damages sought. Id. Thereafter, the plaintiff amended his complaint. Id.

Arguments

The plaintiff's amended complaint alleged that Pristine was defective and unsafe for its intended purposes and that its label provided an affirmation that the product was safe to use on blueberries. Id. at *1. The plaintiff also argued that the label misrepresented that field tests were performed on blueberry bushes and that Pristine was sold without adequate tests on blueberries. Id. at *2. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant's conduct constituted oppressive and unconscionable behavior. Id.

The defendant filed a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, challenging the sufficiency of the pleadings; the defendant argued that the petition failed to allege that Pristine did not conform to its chemical description, was ineffective to prevent fungus, or was unsafe for blueberries. Id. at *2-3.

Analysis and Holdings

The issue for the court was the scope of the defendant's warranties and the extent to which they had been disclaimed. Id. at *3. Although the defendant made limited warranties that Pristine would conform to its chemical description and was reasonably fit for the purposes referred to in the directions for use, the court held that the defendant did not warrant against crop injury or guarantee successful crops. Id. at *4. The plaintiff ignored the label's limitations and expanded the label to warrant that no crop damage would occur. Id. Additionally, the court held that the plaintiff's unconscionability claim had no merit because his pleadings failed to allege sufficient facts to overcome the disclaimer. Id. at *5.

The case was decided on September 3, 2008.