§ 147.084.Affirmative Defense: Reliance

A defence for the middle of the supply chain, and it addresses a real position.

Subsection (a): in an action for fraud, misrepresentation, disparagement, libel, or other similar action based on the alleged falsity of a computer date statement or express warranty, it is an affirmative defence that: the defendant reasonably relied on the statement or warranty of an independent, upstream manufacturer or seller; the statement was false or misleading; and the defendant did not have actual knowledge that it was.

The position it protects is the reseller’s. A dealer told by a manufacturer that a product was compliant, who repeated that to a customer, has made a false statement — and without this defence would be exposed to a fraud or misrepresentation claim for repeating what it was told.

Three conditions bound it. The reliance must be reasonable, the source must be independent and upstream — so a defendant cannot rely on its own affiliate — and the defendant must have lacked actual knowledge of the falsity.

Note that constructive knowledge does not defeat the defence. A defendant who should have known is still protected; only actual knowledge removes it.

Subsection (b) defines "computer date statement" as a material statement about a product’s present or future ability to avoid date failure — including a statement that it is "Year 2000 Compliant" or a similar representation, or that it complies with a standard established by a state or federal regulatory agency or a national or international standards organization.

Naming the marketing phrase directly is unusual and useful: the term of art of that era is written into the statute.