Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2A-216 Third Party Beneficiaries of Express and Implied Warranties

• Library: Oklahoma Statutes
• Edition: 2023
• Currency: Current through Laws 2023EX1, c. 52.
• Year: 2023
• Citation: Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2A-216

(1) A warranty to or for the benefit of a lessee under this article, whether express or implied, extends to any natural person who is in the family or household of the lessee or who is a guest in the lessee's home if it is reasonable to expect that such person may use, consume, or be affected by the goods and who is injured in person by breach of the warranty.

(2) This section does not displace principles of law and equity that extend a warranty to or for the benefit of a lessee to other persons.

(3) The operation of this section may not be excluded, modified, or limited, but an exclusion, modification, or limitation of the warranty, including any with respect to rights and remedies, effective against the lessee is also effective against any beneficiary designated under this section.

Cite as Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2A-216

History: Added by Laws 1988, HB 1683, c. 86, § 25, eff. November 1, 1988.

Note:

Oklahoma Code Comment

Privity. Section 2A-216 of the uniform version of Article 2A requires a legislature enacting Article 2A to choose one of three alternatives. Section 2A-216 abrogates any common law doctrine of privity in lease transactions to a greater or lesser extent dependent upon which alternative is selected. Privity essentially means that the plaintiff and defendant were participants in the lease transaction. Article 2A does not itself require privity between a plaintiff and a defendant with respect to a suit for breach of warranty in a lease. That requirement, if it exists, is a matter of common law outside of Article 2A. See 12A Oklahoma Statutes § 1-103. Thus the alternatives in § 2A-216 should be understood to express only a legislative declaration that any privity requirement will be abrogated to the extent of the alternative selected.

Selection is to be premised upon the degree to which privity, a doctrine created by the courts, has been abrogated by case law in the jurisdiction. Whether, if a less expansive alternative is selected on this basis, any privity requirement beyond that, whether one of so-called vertical or horizontal privity, should be retained is left to further judicial decision. Each of the less expansive alternatives (Alternatives A and B) expressly state this policy: "This section does not displace principles of law and equity that extend a warranty to or for the benefit of a lessee to other persons." Thus the same policy that, with respect to warranties in sales transactions, is articulated only in the Official Comment to UCC § 2-318, in Article 2A is articulated in the statute so that courts might have a clear direction. For an example of the difficulty Oklahoma courts experienced on this matter under 12A Oklahoma Statutes § 2-318, see, e.g., Moss v. Polyco, Inc., 522 P.2d 622, at 625 (Okla.1974). Section 83 of H.B. No. 1683, recognizing the issue exists for both Article 2A and Article 2 in Oklahoma, also amends 12A Oklahoma Statutes § 2-318 so as to make this point in the statute with respect to Article 2. See, as amended, 12A Oklahoma Statutes § 2-318(2).