Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42a-2-314
(1959, P.A. 133, S. 2-314.)
Cited. 176 C. 245; 181 C. 62; 182 Conn. 561; 184 Conn. 10; Id., 607; 191 Conn. 150; 203 Conn. 342; 216 Conn. 65. Cited. 1 Conn.App. 690; 2 Conn.App. 308; 27 CA 688; Id., 810; 33 Conn.App. 575. Clear purpose of implied warranty of merchantability is not to assign blame, but to assign risk and that fault is not an element of plaintiff's case for breach of that warranty where defendant unknowingly sold plaintiff a vehicle with a salvage history. 87 CA 687. Where defendant restaurateur, sued by plaintiff customer who consumed defective clams, impleaded third party defendant as supplier, statute of limitations barred third party action and demurrer to third party complaint was sustained. 28 CS 385. To establish breach of implied warranty or merchantability under section, it must be proven that the "goods" were not merchantable at time of sale. 33 Conn.Supp. 108. Cited. 37 Conn.Supp. 735; 42 CS 153. Cited. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 344, 345. When salesman for defendant car dealer several times informed plaintiff car was sold "as is" and "no guarantee" was stamped on sales contract and receipt given plaintiff, there was no implied warranty of fitness in sale of the car. Id., 685. Cited. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 482.