Chaurasia v. General Motors Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that there is no cause of action for breach of a limited 24 warranty unless the consumer shows that the manufacturer did not comply with the 25 warranty’s express terms
• in the implied warranty of merchantability context, plaintiffs claim for revocation of acceptance failed as a matter of law due to lack of privity
• “The contract must have some causal connection with the claim to justify an award of attorneys’ fees.”
• “A defendant seeking attorneys’ fees under 18 A.R.S. § 12–341.01(A) need not be a party to the contract forming the basis for the 19 award.”
• “the privity requirement extends to both implied and express warranties” (citing Flory v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc., 129 Ariz. 574, 578 (1981)
• “Time after time, Arizona courts have held that a claim for breach of warranty does arise out of contract for purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).