The automobile warranty disclaimer today is the subject of much controversy and abuse, often with good reason. The automobile purchaser has long suffered from being on the sticky end of a contract of adhesion. Those who own automobiles have all too often had unpleasant experiences with patent flaws, latent defects and shoddy repairs. But sympathy is generally coming to lie with the "aggrieved" buyer, and the warranty disclaimer is now under siege. Two interrelated topics will be covered in this discussion: warranty disclaimers under Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors and under the Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter referred to as "Code"); and rejection, revocation, and cure under the Code. Zabriskie Chevrolet v.Smith will also be examined, for this particular case contains one of the few opinions which actually attempts to fully apply the Code and its remedies to a warranty disclaimer situation.
William T. Stanley Jr., Defective Automobiles and the U.C.C., 18 Clev.-Marshall L. Rev. 527 (1969)