P0130 REVIEW DENIED Evidence of letters defendant wrote to other homeowners indicating that it would provide a 10-year warranty with a minimum purchase, that plaintiff's purchase exceeded that minimum, and that defendant offered to replace some of the product 10 years after plaintiff purchased it did not justify the inference that defendant had provided plaintiff with a 10-year warranty, particularly in view of defendant's testimony that it offered a 10-year warranty only when requested to do so and that it offered replacement to plaintiff as a courtesy; in answering a question from the jury, the trial court's delivery to jurors of a small claims handbook with relevant sections highlighted was not an adequate substitute for concise, carefully drafted, jury instructions, but did not require reversal because no objection was made at the time of trial, and because the judgment could be affirmed for other reasons.

CARRAU v MARVIN LUMBER (Defective Windows) 93 CA4 281 [See: CivC 1790 etseq; CommC 2725; CCP 608; Peo v Murillo 47 CA4 1104; Soule v GM 8 C4 548, T/AT 11/94; Bishop v Hyundai 44 CA4 750, T/AT 5/96]