Reference no: EM13224520

Hatfield owned a large fann on which he grew grain. His combine was inadequate in relation to the acreage of grain that he harvested annually. As a result, on several occasions his crops had been adversely affected by rain and poor weather conditions. He reasoned that a larger machine would reduce the time spent harvesting by as much as two-thirds and, thereby, reduce the chances of bad weather affecting his harvest.

At an agricultural exhibition, he examined a new self-propelled combine that was advertised in the brochure and in the display as capable of harvesting grain at three times the speed of his old equipment. The machine was much larger and more powerful than his old combine and appeared to be of the correct size for his fann.

On his return home, he contacted the local dealer for the combine. After explaining his needs and showing the dealer the brochures, the dealer told him that he was unfamiliar with that model as it was so new. The dealer contacted the manufacturer for further information immediately, and he was assured by the manufacturer and accordingly assured Hatfield that the size of that he was considering would be capable of harvesting his crop in one-third of the time taken by his older model. He placed an order for the combine, with delivery to be made in July, well before he would require the machine.

The machine did not arrive until the beginning of the harvest on August 22nd, and Hatfield immediately put the machine into service. Unfortunately, the machine was out of adjustment, and Hatfield was obliged to call the dealer to put it in order. The equipment continued to break down each time Hatfield operated it at the recommended speed. In spite of numerous attempts by the dealer to correct the problem, the equipment could not be operated at anything more than a very slow speed without a breakdown. Hatfield found that despite the large size of the equipment, his harvest time was no faster. When the harvest was, completed, he returned the machine and demanded his money back.

The equipment dealer refused to return his money. He pointed to a clause in the purchase agreement that Hatfield had signed, which read:

No warranty or condition, express or implied, shall apply to this agreement with respect to fitness for the use intended or as to performance, except those specifically stated herein.

The only reference in the agreement to the equipment stated that it was to be a "new model XVX self-propelled combine."

Advise Hatfield ofhis rights (if any). Discuss the defences available to Hatfield's claim(s).