A seller's warranty whether express or implied extends to any person who may reasonably be expected to use, consume, or be affected by the goods and who is injured by breach of the warranty. A seller may not exclude or limit the operation of this section.
Source: L. 65: p. 1312, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-318.
Editor's note - Colorado legislative change: Colorado changed "natural person who is in the family or household of his buyer or who is a guest in his home if it is reasonable to expect that such person may" to read "person who may reasonably be expected to".
ANNOTATION
The general assembly has expanded the class of persons protected by express and implied warranties beyond that set forth in the original uniform code. Prutch v. Ford Motor Co., 40 Colo. App. 129, 574 P.2d 102 (1977), rev'd on other grounds, 618 P.2d 657 (Colo. 1980).
Privity is not required in warranty actions. Pust v. Union Supply Co., 38 Colo. App. 435, 561 P.2d 355 (1976), rev'd sub nom. Holly Sugar Corp. v. Union Supply Co., 194 Colo. 316, 572 P.2d 148 (1977)(party indemnification issue), and aff'd, 196 Colo. 162, 583 P.2d 276 (1978).
Properly executed limitations of warranties or available remedies are equally applicable to anyone that would be a beneficiary of a seller's warranty. Wenner Petro. v. Mitsui & Co., 748 P.2d 356 (Colo. App. 1987).
There is no indication that the general assembly intended to include arbitration as a limitation which could be imposed on remote purchasers through the operation of this section. Recold, S.A. De C.V. v. Monfort of Colo., Inc., 893 F.2d 195 (8th Cir. 1990).
Lessee as beneficiary. Although a lessee of a machine does not directly receive the benefits of the warranties made by the seller to the lessor, the lessee may be a third party beneficiary of such warranties who could "reasonably be expected to use, consume, or be affected by the goods". Lease Fin., Inc. v. Burger, 40 Colo. App. 107, 575 P.2d 857 (1977).
Warranties provided by the uniform commercial code are not the exclusive means of recovery without a showing of negligence or fault. Larson v. Clark Equip. Co., 33 Colo. App. 277, 518 P.2d 308 (1974).
Judicial adoption of strict liability in tort not precluded. The legislative adoption of the UCC warranties without a privity requirement did not preclude the judicial adoption of strict liability in tort. Larson v. Clark Equip. Co., 33 Colo. App. 277, 518 P.2d 308 (1974).
For discussion of the distinction between liability in contract for breach of warranty and strict tort liability for product misrepresentation, see Am. Safety Equip. Corp. v. Winkler, 640 P.2d 216 (Colo. 1982).
Applied in Hansen v. Mercy Hosp., 40 Colo. App. 17, 570 P.2d 1309 (1977).