or replace defects in goods ... the buyer is deprived of the benefits of the limited remedy and it therefore fails its essential purpose. Defendant contends its warranty had expired before the machine malfunctioned, and the latent nature of the design defect does not toll the warranty period. Plaintiff asserts that defendant’s one-year warranty period is unenforceable. This is so, according to plaintiff, because the mold is undetectable for the first three years of operation and a one-year warranty period would cause the warranty to fail of its essential purpose. To support its contention that any express or implied warranties had expired before plaintiff experienced problems, defendant cites Buckeye Resources, Inc. v. DuraTech Indus. Int’l, Inc., 2011 WL 5190787, *3-4 (S.D.Ohio) (<HOLDING>); Sonner v. Mullinax Ford North Canton, Inc.,
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 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 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 plaintiffs were not foreclosed from pursuing ucc remedies outside of written warranty because warranty notice provision did not specify that the remedies provided were exclusive of any other remedy holding plaintiff was barred from seeking remedy because express warranty expired in accordance with time limits elucidated in the limited repair and replace warranty