a car from dealer South Motors and was issued a warranty that ran from warrantor BMW to the first retail purchaser and each subsequent purchaser. The court held that plaintiff Mesa could pursue an express warranty claim against warrantor BMW, but “Mesa cannot maintain suit against BMW for breach of implied warranty as there was no privity of contract between Mesa and BMW.” id. Similarly, in Rentas v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 936 So.2d 747 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2006), the court held that purchasers of a used car could pursue a breach of express warranty claim against the manufacturer, who had issued a written warranty, but could not pursue an implied warranty claim because there was no privity of contract. See also Cerasani v. American Honda Motor Company, 916 So.2d 843, 846 (Fla.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). Like the plaintiffs in Mesa and Rentas,
holding inter alia defendant breached implied warranty of merchantability where an express warranty regarding safety of goods was printed on package and where goods failed to conform to the express warranty holding that warranty claim accrued at tender where 180 day warranty on computer not a warranty for future performance as it involved a remedy only holding that under virginia law an implied warranty claim was not actionable against the plaintiff because there was no privity holding that subse quent purchaser was entitled to protections of express written warranty but could not assert claim for implied warranty because complaint did not allege privity between purchaser plaintiff and defendant honda holding that lower court erred in dismissing express warranty claim but properly granted motion to dismiss implied warranty claims due to lack of privity between the plaintiff an enduser of a pos system and the manufacturer of the system