Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. Case Study

INTRODUCTION

Defendant DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (“DePuy”) seeks partial summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ express and implied warranty claims. Defendants claim Plaintiffs have failed to prove contractual privity, as required by California law to claim breach of warranty, and, as to Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of implied warranty of fitness, DePuy argues that Plaintiffs cannot show the specific purpose for which Plaintiffs would use the Pinnacle metal-on-mental (“MoM”) hip system. Defendants arguments are without merit – Plaintiffs’ evidence shows that DePuy’s marketing heavily promoted the device specifically for young, active patients, a purpose specific enough to meet the requirements of California law. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have satisfied

Com. Code § 2315. Under section 2315, an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose exists where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know (a) any particular purpose for which goods are required, and (b) that the buyer is relying on the seller 's skill or judgment to select or to furnish suitable goods for such purpose. Id. Usually, a “particular purpose” differs from an “ordinary purpose” in that it “envisages a specific use by the buyer which is peculiar to the nature of his business,” while the ordinary purposes for which goods are used are “those envisaged in the concept of merchantability and go to uses which are customarily made of the goods in question.” Am. Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Superior Court, 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 526 (Ct. App. 1995), as modified on denial of reh 'g (Sept. 21, 1995); see also Cal. Com. Code § 2315, cmt.2. “For example, shoes are generally used for the purpose of walking upon ordinary ground, but a seller may know that a particular pair was selected to be used for climbing mountains.” Id. The implied warranty of fitness “is breached if the seller 's product is not in fact suitable for the use intended by

Com. Code § 2315 (emphasis added); see also Keith v. Buchanan, 220 Cal. Rptr. 392, 399 (Ct. App. 1985) (“The major question in determining the existence of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is the reliance by the buyer upon the skill and judgment of the seller to select an article suitable for his needs.”). California law clearly places the focus on the seller’s knowledge of the purpose for which the goods are required and the reliance on the seller’s skill and judgment in selecting suitable goods for that purpose: any particular purpose will suffice, so long as the seller has reason to know about