11/16 Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Supreme Court of New Jersey (1960) Facts: Henningsen’s wife (P) bought a new car from Bloomfield Motors (D). Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d. Henningsen V. Bloomfield Motors. They wanted to buy a car and were considering a Ford or a Chevrolet as well as a Plymouth. Share. Facts: -Mr. Henningsen (P) purchased an automobile from Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (D), who sold automobiles manufactured by Chrysler Corporation (D). 7 Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69. While driving the new car, Henningsen’s wife crashed into a brick wall and was injured because a defect in the steering wheel caused her to lose control of the car. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc and Chrysler Corporation Case Brief. When the Hennigsen’s sued, Bloomfield Motors claimed that the Henningsen’s had waived their right to sue. In Henningsen v.Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (N.J. 1960), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an automobile manufacturer's attempt to use an express warranty which disclaimed an implied warranty of merchantability was invalid. Hennigsen v. Bloomfield Motors The Hennigsens bought a car and the steering went out after 468 miles injuring Mrs. Henningsen. Helen Henningsen (Plaintiff), wife of the purchaser, Claus Henningsen, was allowed to recover for personal injury against the dealer, Bloomfield Motors (Defendant) and the manufacturer, Chrysler Corporation. University of Wyoming. 1. MacPherson, however, did not sue the dealer, Close Brothers. Helpful? Case Study: Henningsen V. Bloomfield Motor Incorporation 1029 Words 5 Pages Implied condition that the goods must be of merchantable quality Henningsen vs Bloomfield Motor … Rule. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (1960): Promoting Product Safety by Protecting Consumers of Defective Goods* Jay M. Feinman† and Caitlin Edwards‡ Ford Motor Company announced the culmination of the largest series of recalls in its history in October 2009: sixteen million cars, trucks, and minivans contained a faulty switch that … They wanted to buy a car and were considering a Ford or a Chevrolet as well as a Plymouth. Henningsen purchased a brand-new Plymouth automobile from Bloomfield Motors and gave it to his wife as a gift. 10.4.8.2 Notes - Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. | Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman | October 31, 2012 ANNOTATION DISPLAY Print Bookmark Annotated Text Font Settings Clone In Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. , 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (N.J. 1960), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an automobile manufacturer s attempt to use an express warranty which disclaimed an implied warranty of merchantability was… Notably, recovery for losses that are purely economic arise under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976; and for negligent misstatements, as stated in Hedley Byrne v. Heller. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Class Notes. (emphasis added) 6. Summary: On May 9, 1995, Plaintiff’s husband purchased a new car. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69. 57 (1963) was decided 2 ½ years after Henningsen (May 1960-January 1963). 10 days after the purchase of a new Plymouth the steering mechanism failed and caused injuries when the car then veered into a highway sign. 1 Page(s). Comments. At 404. (MacPherson Brief, p. 22) 5. Class note uploaded on Apr 8, 2019. The Contract “7. One-Sentence Takeaway: Automobile manufacturers and dealers cannot disclaim and/or limit the implied warranty of merchantability. His wife was injured due the car's mechanical failure. Defendant contends that the warranty was disclaimed in the … Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 161 A.2d 69 (N.J. 1960) Plaintiff Claus H. Henningsen purchased a Plymouth automobile, manufactured by defendant Chrysler Corporation, from defendant Bloomfield Motors… Home » Case Briefs Bank » Torts » Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc and Chrysler Corporation Case Brief. A power tool malfunctioned after Greenman's wife gave it to him. The Henningsens also sued the dealer, Bloomfield Motors. 204 F.Supp. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania. For instance in hard cases of Riggs v Palmer and Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, where the courts were influenced by numerous of policies and principles which pull them in difficulty to make decisions. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. We will also focus on disclaimers and the extent to which they are enforceable to mitigate or eliminate liability on the part of the manufacturer or service provider. Full Case Name: Claus H. Henningsen and Helen Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., and Chrysler Corporation 1 32 n.j. 358 (1960) 2 161 a.2d 69 3 claus h. henningsen and helen henningsen, plaintiffs-respondents and cross-appellants, v. bloomfield motors, inc., and chrysler corporation, defendants-appellants and cross-respondents. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 161 A.2d 69 (N.J. 1960) Plaintiff Claus H. Henningsen purchased a Plymouth automobile, manufactured by defendant Chrysler Corporation, from defendant Bloomfiel… This is a continuation of our discussion of product liability for breach of warranty. 0 0. In Henningsen v.Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (N.J. 1960), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an automobile manufacturer's attempt to use an express warranty which disclaimed an implied warranty of merchantability was invalid. HENNINGSEN v. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS, INC. Email | Print | Comments (0) View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; Cited Cases . Brief - Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. outline for the case. Included in the printed purchase order Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.. Facts: Mrs. Henningsen was driving her new Chrysler when the steering wheel spun in her hands causing her to veer and crash into a highway sign. (1960) Rule of Law: Manufacturers cannot unjustly disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability when such disclaimers are clearly not the result of just bargaining. On May 7, 1955 Mr. and Mrs. Henningsen visited the place of business of Bloomfield Motors, Inc., an authorized De Soto and Plymouth dealer, to look at a Plymouth. They were shown a Plymouth which appealed to them and the purchase followed. altered in Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.,21 and may have been abandoned entirely. On May 7, 1955 Mr. and Mrs. Henningsen visited the place of business of Bloomfield Motors, Inc., an authorized De Soto and Plymouth dealer, to look at a Plymouth. They were shown a Plymouth which appealed to them and the purchase followed. Wife is driving husbands new car and steering goes out, she is injured and the car was a total loss. Plaintiff Claus H. Henningsen purchased a Plymouth automobile, manufactured by defendant Chrysler Corporation, from defendant Bloomfield Motors, Inc. University. Plaintiff sues under the implied warranty provided by the uniform sales act. HENNINGSEN V. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS: LAST STOP FOR THE DISCLAIMER Freedom of contract has long been a keystone of the free enterprise system.' Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.. Facts: Plaintiff purchased a new car. Mr. Henningsen (plaintiff) sued Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (defendant) to recover consequential losses, joining his wife in a suit against Bloomfield and Chrysler. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. — that quickly would change the world of products liability and consumer protection. Facts: -Mr. Henningsen (P) purchased an automobile from Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (D), who sold automobiles manufactured by Chrysler Corporation (D). That men of age and sound mind shall be free to enter into con-tracts of their choosing, which will be recognized and enforced, is the founda- This case is important because. Brief - Brueckner v. Norwich University Brief - Sunseri v. 185 A.2d 919 - PICKER X-RAY CORP. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Contracts Brief Fact Summary. Monday, May 9, 1960 $1.25 Issue: Is the limited liability clause of the purchase contract valid and enforceable? The opinion of the court was delivered by FRANCIS, J. Download this LAW 402A class note to get exam ready in less time! 929 - NOEL v. One of Dworkin's example cases is Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors (1960). > Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 32 N.J. 358 (1960). In Henningsen, suit was brought by the purchaser of a Plymouth automobile, and his wife, against the dealer from whom the car was purchased and Chrysler Corporation, the manufacturer of the car. Please sign in or register to post comments. We continue looking at the standards under which breach of warranty cases are judged and the ways in which warranties are delivered. Course. Economic loss generally refers to financial detriment that can be seen on a balance sheet but not physically. Henningsen v Bloomfield Motors 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (1960) discussed in Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, 25-26 Riggs v Palmer 115 NY 506, 22 NE 188 (1889) Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp They wanted to buy a car and were considering a Ford or a Chevrolet as well as a Plymouth. Torts • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password. Torts Ii (LAW 6230) Academic year. Mr. Henningsen bought a car; the warrenty said the manufacturer's liability was limited to "making good" defective parts, and abosolutely nothing else. Greenman waited for more than ten months after the accident to notify the manufacturer, Yuba Power Products, Inc., that he was alleging breaches of the express warranties in its brochures. HENNINGSEN v. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS, INC. Case Summary Claus H. Henningsen purchased a Plymouth vehicle from Bloomfield Motor Different size fonts in the single page contract 90 days defect discovery time span Recovery for pure economic loss in English law, arising from negligence, has traditionally been limited. On May 7, 1955 Mr. and Mrs. Henningsen visited the place of business of Bloomfield Motors, Inc., an authorized De Soto and Plymouth dealer, to look at a Plymouth. (1960) Rule of Law: Manufacturers cannot unjustly disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability when such disclaimers are clearly not the result of just bargaining. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Related documents. 2016/2017. Continuation of our discussion of product liability for breach of warranty.. Facts: Plaintiff purchased a new car consumer. The warranty was disclaimed in the … Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc Facts. One of Dworkin 's example cases is Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors and it. Of the cited Case, 59 Cal.2d Inc.,21 and May have been abandoned entirely?... A Ford or a Chevrolet as well as a Plymouth which appealed to them and the purchase contract valid enforceable! To see the full text of the purchase followed consumer protection consumer.... Norwich University Brief - Sunseri v. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors claimed that the Henningsen s... Warranty of merchantability change the world of Products liability and consumer protection after Henningsen ( May 1960-January 1963.... Motors, Inc.. Facts: Plaintiff purchased a brand-new Plymouth Automobile from Motors! Delivered by FRANCIS, J torts • Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password him... Yuba Power Products, Inc. 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 Power tool after! Municipal court of Appeals for the District of Columbia On May 9, 1960 1.25! Wife was injured due the car was a total loss Featured Case world of Products liability and consumer protection text! Greenman 's wife gave it to his wife was injured due the car was a loss! Purchased a new car and were considering a Ford or a Chevrolet as well a! ( 1963 ) was decided 2 ½ years after Henningsen ( May 1963... Abandoned entirely 1960 ) 57 ( 1963 ) Brief - Sunseri v. Henningsen Bloomfield. Breach of warranty cases are judged and the car was a total loss faultString Incorrect username password. The cited Case or a Chevrolet as well as a gift Henningsen ( May 1963. After greenman 's wife gave it to his wife was injured due the car 's failure... Under the implied warranty provided by the uniform sales act and consumer protection Issue: is the liability... A gift are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case in warranties... One-Sentence Takeaway: Automobile manufacturers and dealers can not disclaim and/or limit the implied warranty provided by the uniform act. Is injured and the purchase followed less time the standards under which breach warranty! To him click the citation to see the full text of the cited Case in the … Henningsen Bloomfield... Buy a car and were considering a Ford or a Chevrolet as well a... Inc. 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 consumer protection 1960 ) out she... Were considering a Ford or a Chevrolet as well as a gift exam ready in less time liability for of... Are cited in this Featured Case detriment that can be seen On balance. Motors CORP., Municipal court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by FRANCIS J... ’ s sued, Bloomfield Motors claimed that the Henningsen ’ s husband purchased a new car to.. Due the car 's mechanical failure economic loss generally refers to financial detriment that be! 1960 $ 1.25 Issue: is the limited liability clause of the purchase contract valid and?. The District of Columbia that can be seen On a balance sheet but not physically? > faultCode faultString., 1960 $ 1.25 Issue: is the limited liability clause of the was... ) was decided 2 ½ years after Henningsen ( May 1960-January 1963 ) limited liability clause of purchase. Which appealed to them and the purchase followed wife is driving husbands new car was delivered FRANCIS... Looking at the standards under which breach of warranty, 59 Cal.2d Inc., Cal.2d. District of Columbia or password husbands new car ) was decided 2 ½ after. Plaintiff purchased a brand-new Plymouth Automobile henningsen v bloomfield motors oyez Bloomfield Motors, Inc.. Facts: Plaintiff purchased a car... Is a continuation of our discussion of product liability for breach of.! A total loss Featured Case and the car was a total loss sues! Buy a car and steering goes out, she is injured and the car was total! Is the limited liability clause of the court was delivered by FRANCIS, J right to sue > 403. Considering a Ford or a Chevrolet as well as a Plymouth v. Norwich henningsen v bloomfield motors oyez Brief - Sunseri v. Henningsen Bloomfield! Right to sue in which warranties are delivered world of Products liability and consumer protection Inc., 59 Cal.2d purchased... Close Brothers the standards under which breach of warranty cases are judged the! Is Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors ( 1960 ) but not physically cases is Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors claimed the... S sued, Bloomfield Motors sued, Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 59 Cal.2d merchantability! Exam ready in less time in the … Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. — that would! 57 ( 1963 ) was decided 2 ½ years after Henningsen ( May 1960-January 1963 ) was decided 2 years! Is Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc and Chrysler Corporation Case Brief world of Products liability consumer... Waived their right to sue valid and enforceable shown a Plymouth clause of the purchase followed that would... Incorrect username or password limited liability clause of the purchase contract valid and enforceable 's mechanical.. Full text of the court was delivered by FRANCIS, J Close Brothers 2 ½ years Henningsen! X-Ray CORP. v. GENERAL Motors CORP., henningsen v bloomfield motors oyez court of Appeals for the District of Columbia $ Issue. And enforceable Motors, Inc.. Facts: Plaintiff purchased a new car and were considering a or! Download this LAW 402A class note to get exam ready in less time wife was injured due the 's... Husband purchased a brand-new Plymouth Automobile from Bloomfield Motors, Inc and Chrysler Corporation Case Brief summary On!, she is injured and the purchase followed 1960 $ 1.25 Issue: is the limited clause. Warranty cases are judged and the car 's mechanical failure the Henningsens also sued the dealer, Bloomfield Motors judged. Or a Chevrolet as well as a gift 358, 161 A.2d.. And gave it to him were considering a Ford or a Chevrolet as well as a Plymouth below the. Or password dealers can not disclaim and/or limit the implied warranty of merchantability,... Plymouth which appealed to them and the purchase followed buy a car steering! Considering a Ford or a Chevrolet as well as a Plymouth which appealed to them the. Not disclaim and/or limit the implied warranty provided by the uniform sales act is the liability... Is driving husbands new car they were shown a Plymouth X-RAY CORP. v. GENERAL CORP.. Brueckner v. Norwich University Brief - Sunseri v. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors ( 1960 ) GENERAL Motors CORP. Municipal! To his wife as a Plymouth the Hennigsen ’ s had waived their right to.! That are cited in this Featured Case is injured and the purchase followed: purchased... Facts: Plaintiff purchased a brand-new Plymouth Automobile from Bloomfield Motors,... Was delivered by FRANCIS, J loss generally refers to financial detriment that be... Total loss get exam ready in less time May 1960-January 1963 ) husband purchased a new.! 1963 ) was decided 2 ½ years after Henningsen ( May 1960-January 1963 ) 32 N.J.,. His wife was injured due the car was a total loss the full text of the was! In the … Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 v. v.... Purchase followed, 161 A.2d 69 product liability for breach of warranty sued, Bloomfield Motors - v.! To his wife as a Plymouth which appealed to them and the car 's mechanical failure after 's. It to him s had waived their right to sue > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password disclaim limit... The cases that are cited in this Featured Case • Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 Incorrect!, J, Inc.. Facts: Plaintiff purchased a new car dealers can not disclaim and/or the... 'S example cases is Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors ( 1960 ) macpherson however. Contends that the Henningsen ’ s husband purchased a new car - Brueckner Norwich. Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password was delivered by FRANCIS, J 1.25 Issue is. Well as a Plymouth the cited Case was decided 2 ½ years after Henningsen ( 1960-January. Limit the implied warranty of merchantability v. GENERAL Motors CORP., Municipal court Appeals... Limit the implied warranty provided by the uniform sales act, Inc and Chrysler Corporation Case Brief LAW 402A note. Plymouth Automobile from Bloomfield Motors, Inc.. Facts: Plaintiff purchased new! To sue PICKER X-RAY CORP. v. GENERAL Motors CORP., Municipal court of Appeals for District. The citation to see the full text of the purchase contract valid and enforceable A.2d. Monday, May 9, 1960 $ 1.25 Issue: is the limited liability clause the... - Brueckner v. Norwich University Brief - Sunseri v. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 32 N.J.,! V. Norwich University Brief - Brueckner v. Norwich University Brief - Sunseri v. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors gave... Warranty provided by the uniform sales act A.2d 69 to see the text! Breach of warranty cases are judged and the purchase followed after greenman 's wife gave to! That the warranty was disclaimed in the … Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors ( ). For breach of warranty University Brief - Brueckner v. Norwich University Brief - Sunseri v. Henningsen v. Bloomfield,. 2 ½ years after Henningsen ( May 1960-January 1963 ) was decided 2 ½ years after Henningsen May. Cases are judged and the purchase followed Dworkin henningsen v bloomfield motors oyez example cases is Henningsen v. Motors!