Question

Daniel Franco, a free-lance gaming consultant and blogger, needed a new gaming system for his business. After some lengthy review, Daniel decided to purchase a Nintendo Switch system for his business needs. Weeks after the one-year warranty expired, Daniel’s Nintendo Switch failed to operate due to a flaw in the product manufacture. Daniel sued Nintendo, making the argument that the gaming system should have lasted "at least a couple of years," which Daniel viewed as a reasonable consumer expectation for such an expensive gaming system. Daniel argued that Nintendo’s description of the gaming system as "most reliable", and "durable", were affirmative statements concerning the quality and performance of the gaming system, which Nintendo did not meet. How should the court rule? Why?

Answer 1

The court would consider if Nintendo's claims about the Switch's durability created an express warranty and if that was breached. Planned obsolescence and evidence of such a practice could influence the court's ruling. The court would also weigh the reasonable consumer lifespan expectations against the actual product performance.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the case of Daniel Franco v. Nintendo, the court would need to consider whether Nintendo's claims about the Switch's durability and reliability constitute express warranties and if they did, whether Nintendo breached these warranties. If Daniel can show that the statements Nintendo made about the gaming system being "most reliable" and "durable" were part of the basis of the bargain and are not mere puffery, the court may find that Nintendo has violated an express warranty.

It is also relevant to consider the concept of planned obsolescence, which is when products are designed with an artificially limited useful life so they will become obsolete or non-functional after a certain period. This is a controversial business practice, and if Daniel Franco can provide evidence that his Nintendo Switch was subject to planned obsolescence, it could influence the court's ruling.

However, absent a specific legal mandate requiring durable goods to last for a minimum amount of time beyond their warranty, the court may find against Franco if Nintendo's warranty was clear and the system lasted beyond this period, unless Franco can prove the existence of a defect that Nintendo knew about and failed to disclose. The court would also compare the reasonable expectation of the product's life span based on consumer standards versus the actual performance of the product.

Answer 2

Step-by-step explanation:

Issue: Will the court rule in support of Daniel’s argument that Nintendo breached the warranty based on reasonable expectation on the performance of an expensive system and statements made while selling the gaming system?

Rule: There is a creation of express warranty when a seller makes a description of the statement quality, condition or performance of goods sold. This warranty is created by the statement of facts and if the seller uses words to designate the value of the supposed goods, it will only be considered as an opinion that does not create any express warranty.

The customer’s reasonable expectation of the existence of the gaming system based on the price leads to implied warranty. The goods sold should be logically fit for the general purpose for which it is sold. It should be of proper quality to satisfy the implied warranty of merchantability and the goods should fit the particular purpose for which the buyer will use the goods to satisfy the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

Analysis: Here, the argument of Daniel that Nintendo’s description of the gaming system as “most reliable”, and “durable” asserted that the quality and performance of the gaming system will not stay because these words create general statements that are made as part of sale or seller’s opinion about the goods. These words would be considered as puffery and do not create any express warranty. The higher price of the gaming system would create an implied warranty about the performance of the system, but the switch failed only after the warranty period. When the seller has expressly stated the warranty period as one year, any defects that occur after the warranty period will not breach the implied warranty.

Moreover, the gaming system was reasonably fit for Daniel’s business purpose and worked well during the warranty period. Hence Daniel’s arguments will not stay in front of the court.

Conclusion: The court will not rule in favor of Daniel and Daniel will not be able to recover against Nintendo because no breach of warranty had occurred.