Sandra Goodin purchased a new Hyundai Sonata automobile in November 2000 from an Evansville, Indiana, dealer. The Sonata’s manufacturer, Hyundai Motor America, provided a written express warranty of a limited nature, but the dealer did not furnish an express warranty. The contract of sale between the dealer and Goodin contained the dealer’s disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability. Because Hyundai provided a written warranty, the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prohibited Hyundai from disclaiming the implied warranty of merchantability. For a two-year period that ran essentially from the time of purchase, Goodin complained that the car vibrated excessively and that its brakes groaned, squeaked, and made a grinding noise when applied. Various repairs were performed by the dealer that sold Goodin the car and by another Hyundai dealer. Hyundai Motor America’s limited warranty covered most of these repairs. Goodin incurred the cost of other repairs conducted after the expiration of Hyundai’s limited warranty. None of the repairs, however, completely took care of the problems Goodin had consistently pointed out. 

In April 2002, Goodin’s attorney retained an expert to examine the car. The expert noted the brakerelated problems and the excessive vibration and expressed the view that the car was “defective and unmerchantable at the time of manufacture and unfit for operation on public roadways.” In October 2002, a district service manager for Hyundai inspected and test-drove Goodin’s car. Although he did not notice excessive vibration or the brake-related noises about which Goodin complained, he heard “a droning noise” that probably resulted from a failed wheel bearing. The district service manager said he regarded the wheel bearing problem as a serious one that should have been covered by Hyundai’s limited warranty. Goodin later sued Hyundai in an Indiana court for breach of express warranty and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Over Hyundai’s objection, the trial judge’s instructions to the jury on the implied warranty of merchantability claim made no mention of any privity requirement. The jury returned a verdict for Hyundai on Goodin’s breach of express warranty claim, but awarded Goodin $3,000 on her claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Did the court rule correctly when it did so?