Jury verdict that car did not have “a window defect that rendered it unfit for the ordinary purpose of providing transportation” should have ended the jury’s task on the plaintiff’s claim for breach of implied warranty.  But due to an error in the jury verdict form, the jury went on to award plaintiff damages.  Held, the trial court correctly granted defendant’s motion to vacate judgment on the ground that the damage award was inconsistent with the jury’s verdict for defendant on liability.  Plaintiff’s complaints about the phrasing of the liability question were unpersuasive because plaintiff proposed no proper alternative and because given the facts of the case–the only complaint being the window defect–there was no chance the jury could be misled by the verdict’s question.