Booth Real Estate & Insurance Agency v. Sprague Heating & Electric

I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion appears to employ a common-law contract theory to hold that appellant has adopted the manufacturer’s warranty and then concludes that appellant is responsible for repairs under such warranty. The majority has cited no legal authority for this position and I am aware of none. Consequently, I cannot join in its ruling.

Although I am not aware of any Ohio cases on this issue, I would note that a theory of an “adopted manufacturer’s warranty” does exist under certain provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). 2 Generally speaking, a dealer is…