This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court=New Jersey Supreme Court | |court=New Jersey Supreme Court | ||
|date= | |date=1960-5-9 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
| | |other_subjects=Product liability | ||
|facts=Mr. Henningsen wanted to buy his wife a car for Mother's Day. They visited a Chrysler dealer, Bloomfield Motors, Inc. ("Bloomfield") & selected a 1955 Plymouth sedan. | |facts=Mr. Henningsen wanted to buy his wife a car for Mother's Day. They visited a Chrysler dealer, Bloomfield Motors, Inc. ("Bloomfield") & selected a 1955 Plymouth sedan. | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|holding=Yes. A manufacturer that offers a product for sale & advertises it to the public incurs an implied warranty that the product is reasonably suitable for its advertised use. | |holding=Yes. A manufacturer that offers a product for sale & advertises it to the public incurs an implied warranty that the product is reasonably suitable for its advertised use. | ||
|reasons=Court: A disclaimed warranty by a manufacturer is contrary to public welfare. | |reasons=Court: A disclaimed warranty by a manufacturer is contrary to public welfare. | ||
Court: A manufacturer's obligation to a buyer shouldn't be based on [[Contracts/Privity of contract|privity of contract]]. | |||
|rule=This decision is a deviation from traditional contract law. The plaintiff prevailed in this case despite having signed a contract agreeing to relinquish express & implied warranties. | |rule=This decision is a deviation from traditional contract law. The plaintiff prevailed in this case despite having signed a contract agreeing to relinquish express & implied warranties. | ||
Line 23: | Line 25: | ||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/henningsen-v-bloomfield-motors-inc | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/henningsen-v-bloomfield-motors-inc | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 03:41, July 14, 2023
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors | |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
---|---|
Citation | |
Date decided | 1960-5-9 |
Facts
Mr. Henningsen wanted to buy his wife a car for Mother's Day. They visited a Chrysler dealer, Bloomfield Motors, Inc. ("Bloomfield") & selected a 1955 Plymouth sedan.
The purchase contract was an integrated contract stating "No express or implied warranties are made on the vehicle."
10 days after the car purchase, Mrs. Henningsen was driving at 20 mi/h. All of a sudden, she heard a loud crack from under the car, the steering wheel jerked in her hands, the car spun off the road, & crashed into a brick wall.Procedural History
The Henningsens sued Bloomfield & Chrysler claiming breached express & implied warranty after their car was totaled.
Henningsens won in the trial court.Issues
Holding
Reasons
Court: A disclaimed warranty by a manufacturer is contrary to public welfare.
Court: A manufacturer's obligation to a buyer shouldn't be based on privity of contract.Rule
This decision is a deviation from traditional contract law. The plaintiff prevailed in this case despite having signed a contract agreeing to relinquish express & implied warranties.
American courts now stipulate implied warranty for new car purchases.