Q: Notice of UCC breach of warranty claims?

QUESTION
W/regards to the notice req't under 2.607, Vintage homes says no need to notice give to mnfg. The Alabama case afterwards (Hobbs) says need to give notice. It seems like these cases contradict. You said that the AL case only shows that you have to look to state law, but maybe they don't contradict. Vintage there was no privity so I see it this way: No privity = No notice

Hobbs: there was Privity = Notice (although it was a remote mnfg). The UCC comment that Vintage cited to also alluded to the fact that privity was important in the determination of whether there was notice. What do you think? I'm only asking b/c this distinction may have to be made if notice should be given. For example, if it's a remote mnfg I would argue that according to Vintage you don't give notice where there's no privity, however if there's privity as in Hobbs notice should be given. My problem is that Hobbs is an AL case and if I don't take it into account, then I'm effectively making a statement that a remote mnfg never gets UCC notice. Is that statement completely right?

ANSWER
2.607(c) (1) requires that "the buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy."

In 2003, the Houston Court of Appeals held that 2.607(c)(1) does require giving notice to remote manufacturers. US Tire Tech v. Boeran, 110 S..3d 194 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied).

In 2003, the Texas Supreme Court decided Compaq Computer Corp v. Hal Lapray, in which it noted that the states are all over the map on the question of whether notice must be given to a remote manufacturer, and if so what timelines or specificity requirements. The Texas cases cited by the Court all seem to be along the lines that Texas does require notice to a remote mangufacturer.