"Jonathan Kamens" wrote in message
...
"JimT" writes:
In other words. If YOU examined the product the implied waranty no longer
exists.

If you examined the product, "there is no implied warranty
with regard to defects which an examination ought in the
circumstances to have revealed to him."

How, praytell, could the OP's examination of the product in
the store have revealed to him that it would flake his
concrete? On the contrary, his examination of the product in
the store, as well as his conversation with the associate,
suggested that it would not. In short, the warranty of
fitness for purpose is in effect, because the defect which was
subsequently discovered could not have been discovered by
examination before purchase.

Nonsense. He read the instruction, as well as the associate, and determined
it was appropriate. Which, with the evidence I've read, is probably correct.

The "snow tire" scenario (not sure if you read that one) didn't include the
purchaser reading any mfg instructions. I believe this could easily be
argued in court that if there is any defect in the product (doubtful) it
would be the mfg's responsibility. Clearly in the snow tire example, the
consumer relied entirely on the salesman's expertise.

Take, for example, the cement the OP purchased. Assuming he did not tell the
contractor which cement to use, the contractor would be responsible for the
cement. He relied entirely on the contractor's expertise (I obviously don't
know if this is true. This is just for example). My question to you is: Why
doesn't he pursue the contractor? Or for that matter, the cement mfg? Maybe
the store where the cement was purchased? ****, let's put them all on there.
LOL