Chrysler Corp

v. Wilson Plumbing Co., 132 Ga. App. 435, 208 S.E.2d 321, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1717 (1974). Disclaimer of implied warranty was adequate. — Where the disclaimer was in letters larger than any other type on the form, where significant portions of the disclaimer were capitalized, thus distinguishing them from other language on the form, and where the language was conspicuously set forth, the limitation of the implied warranty of merchantability met the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 11-2316(2). Harris v. Sulcus Computer Corp., 175 Ga. App. 140, 332 S.E.2d 660, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2040 (1985). Roofing material vendor’s disclaimer of warranty, which stated in capitalized letters that the vendor made no warranties, express or implied, including merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, except as expressly stated therein, was sufficient to preclude an action against the vendor for breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness. Steele v. Gold Kist, Inc., 186 Ga. App. 569, 368 135 11-2-316 Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Cont’d) S.E.2d 196, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 412 (1988). Printed language effectively precluded a claim for breach of implied warranty, where, although the text of the disclaimer was not in bold print, the heading “DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES” was in large capital letters and the entire paragraph was blocked off by an outline. Bennett v. Matt Gay Chevrolet Oldsmobile, Inc., 200 Ga. App. 348, 408 S.E.2d 111, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 1019 (1991). Goods “Sold As Is” Term “sold as is” excludes implied warranties. — The term, “sold as is,” when contained in contract for sale of personalty, means that buyer takes article in its then present state or condition without any implied warranty as to soundness of condition, or suitability for use, or purposes intended. Hutchinson Homes, Inc. v. Guerdon Indus., Inc., 143 Ga. App. 664, 239 S.E.2d 553, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2455 (1977). Express warranty not negated. — Statement in purchase agreement that goods are sold “as is” does not negate express warranty. City Dodge, Inc. v. Gardner, 232 Ga. 766, 208 S.E.2d 794, 1974 Ga. LEXIS 1084 (1974). Automobile invoice containing language, “I accept the above-described car in its present condition . . .” indicated that the car was sold “as is” and operated to exclude any implied warranties; trial court, therefore, erred in not granting partial summary judgment to seller in regard to the claim for breach of implied warranties. Joseph Charles Parrish, Inc. v. Hill, 173 Ga. App. 97, 325 S.E.2d 595, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2736 (1984). Buyer’s Examination of Goods Demand that buyer fully examine goods. — To bring transaction within scope of “refused to examine” of O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316(3)(b), it is not sufficient that goods are available for inspection. There must in addition be demand by seller that buyer examine goods fully, which demand puts buyer on notice that the buyer is assuming risk of defects which examination ought to reveal. The language “refused to examine” in that subsection is intended to make clear the necessity for such demand. Austin Lee Corp. v. Cascades Motel, Inc., 123 Ga. App. 642, 182 S.E.2d 173, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1329 (1971). Actions Action for deceit. — Where purchaser did not receive car described and identified in bill of sale, but instead received one-half of described vehicle welded to one-half of another unidentified and unidentifiable vehicle, disclaimer of warranties in bill of sale was not sufficient defense against action for deceit. Bill Spreen Toyota, Inc. v. Jenquin, 163 Ga. App. 855, 294 S.E.2d 533, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2692 (1982). Revival of waived defense. — If debtor waives defense of nonexpressed warranties in plain language, the debtor’s guarantor cannot revive it. Hurst v. Stith Equip. Co., 133 Ga. App. 374, 210 S.E.2d 851, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1076 (1974). Defense of breach of warranty cannot be raised by guarantor of debtor. — Whether or not warranty provisions of Uniform Commercial Code apply to lease of machinery, defense of breach of warranty cannot be raised by a guarantor of debtor. Hurst v. Stith Equip. Co., 133 Ga. App. 374, 210 S.E.2d 851, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1076 (1974). The grant of summary judgment to a defendant with respect to an allegation that equipment is not fit for the purpose intended will be affirmed where the lease/ purchase agreement effectively excludes any implied warranties of merchantability or suitability for a particular purpose, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 11-2-316. Holcomb v. Commercial Credit Servs. Corp., 180 Ga. App. 451, 349 S.E.2d 523, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 2201 (1986). 136 11-2-316