Goods to be merchantable must be at least (a) pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and (b) in the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and (c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and (d) run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and (e) are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require; and (f) conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label, if any.
The issue whether a defect existing at the time of sale substantially affecting the value of the collateral creates a breach the implied warrant of merchantability. See 26 Am Jur Proof of Fact 1 Section § 7. Elements of merchantable quality-“Fair average”. The issue is not whether the car can be driven but whether the reduced value has a remedy under the UCC. The answer must be yes? Why would the Code leave those purchasing defective goods without a remedy? The Code reflects the intent that warranties can be created in many ways, both express and implied. N.J.S.A. 12A:2-313. The Uniform Commercial Code should be liberally construed and applied to promulgate its underlying purposes and policies. Matter of Maple Contractors, Inc., 172 N.J.Super. 348, 411 A.2d 1186 (L.1979). The codes basic concept of damages is based on reduction of value. D’Ercole Sales, Inc. v. Fruehauf Corp., 206 N.J.Super. 11, 21, 501 A.2d 990, 995 (App.Div.1985). Does it make sense that the code measures damages analyzing value then leaves a consumer without remedy for purchasing collateral with a defect where the value is reduced by the cost to repair the goods? In Spring Motors v. Ford Trucks 98 N.J. 555, 590 (1985) the claim was that the goods had a reduced value and there were also expenses for repairs, as in the current case.