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
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|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. | ||
The purchase contract was an | The purchase contract was an [[Contracts/Integration clause|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. | 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. | |procedural_history=The Henningsens sued Bloomfield & Chrysler claiming breached express & implied warranty after their car was totaled. | ||
Henningsens won in the trial court. | |||
|issues=Does a manufacturer that offers a product for sale & engages in promotional activities to entice buyers incurs an '''implied warranty''' obligation in relation to that product? | |||
|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. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://casetext.com/case/henningsen-v-bloomfield-motors-inc | |link=https://casetext.com/case/henningsen-v-bloomfield-motors-inc |
Revision as of 15:29, July 4, 2023
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors | |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
---|---|
Citation | |
Date decided | May 9, 1960 |
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
Does a manufacturer that offers a product for sale & engages in promotional activities to entice buyers incurs an implied warranty obligation in relation to that product?
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.