Moon, a farmer, needs to install a two thousand-pound piece of equipment in his barn. This will require lifting the equipment thirty feet up into a hayloft. Moon goes to Davidson Hardware and tells Davidson that he needs some heavy duty rope to be used on his farm. Davidson recommends a one-inch-thick nylon rope, and Moon purchases two hundred feet of it. Moon ties the rope around the piece of equipment, puts the rope through a pulley, and with a tractor, lifts the equipment off the ground. The rope suddenly breaks and the equipment crashes to the ground where it is severely damaged. Moon files a suit against Davidson for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

Bearing in mind that it was Davidson that recommended the rope while stating the specific of the rope. The specifics of the rope would be considered facts, it is this facts that the court would find to be bounded to the warranty. On his part, Moon only stated the fact that he needs rope for his farm, but does not specify what he needs it for. The recommendation by Davidson for that specific rope is based only on the details that it would be used for the farm. This is pointing that, Moon is relying entirely on the seller, who knows about the product, to recommend him a type of rope.

However, there is need to put into consideration that Moon does not specify the exact use of the rope. This implies that Davidson states the he recommends the use of that specific rope.

With the argument back and forth between seller and buyer, there is no warranty at the instance that the seller breached an implied warranty of merchantability, but one can argue there was a

breach of implied warranty of particular purpose if it is taken into consideration that the use of that particular rope is not usually used in farms.

Explanation:

See answer