• Defendant- Penbridge Associates 

Plaintiff- Donna Smith 

Upon telephone exchanges, Penbridge Associates informed Smith that a proven Emu breeder pair was available for purchase. Smith sent 4k as down payment for the breeder pair. One month later, Smith's party travels to Michigan for the final purchase of Proven Emu’s. Upon arrival, Smith’s party repeatedly asked for validity of the Pair of Emu’s.

A few months later during the commencement of Emu breeding season, Smith Party began to notice “male grunting” and other male tendencies from BOTH of the Emu’s purchased from Penbridge Associates. Smith’s party then properly informs Penbridge Associates, only to receive instructions to “Vent Sex” the animals to be sure. 

((Vent Sex = Manuel Sex check, can often hurt the animal and its chances of breeding)) 

Upon further confirmation that the purchased Proven Breeder Pair were both Males, Penbridge Associates were informed with video Evidence to support and never heard back to rectify the contract. Smith Sues for damages of two male Emu’s, Penbridge responds by disclaiming using Smith’s failure to inspect Emus @ the time of delivery or within a reasonable period of time. 

• Did Smith’s party fail to inspect the emus at the time of delivery or within a reasonable period of time thereafter. Penbridge, maintains that an industry custom existed at the time the emus were purchased by Smith, that required appellees to vent sex the emus at that moment

• Warranties are promises by the seller of commodities/goods, that products are sold of a certain quality. The implied terms of warranty are the assumed part of every warranty to ensure good faith & fair dealing consistent to business. The Expressed terms of a warranty boil down to the specifics. (what was advertised?, how was it advertised? Quality assurance to a certain point.) in this case “Proven Breeder Pair of Emu’s”

• Note that Penbridge blindly excuses itself from undertaking that same task of “Sex Venting” before selling the emus to the Smith’s, Penbridge specifically warranted the Emus to be a “pure breeder pair” and reassured the Smith’s that the emus were as represented. The evidence and reassurances of Penbridge gave the Smith party reasonable information to not risk/delay the potential harmful procedure on the purchased Emu’s  

• • Express Warranty is created by the explicit words or actions of a seller. Violating the warranty leads to a breach of contract. Penbridge Associates explicitly advertised the pair of Emu’s to be ‘Proven Breeder Pairs’ when they sold them to Donna Smith and her husband who speculated and questioned the validity of the Emu’s, only to be assured by Penbridge that they were the Proven Breeder Pair as advertised. The clear evidence against Penbridge in this case helps judge the clear breach of contract of expressed terms during the purchase and sale of the “Proven Emu Breeding Pair”