Facts: -Mr. Henningsen (P) purchased an automobile from Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (D), who sold automobiles manufactured by Chrysler Corporation (D). HENNINGSEN V. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS: LAST STOP FOR THE DISCLAIMER Freedom of contract has long been a keystone of the free enterprise system.' Jacquelyn Magaisa October 11, 2020 Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. F: Plaintiff filed a case against the dealership and car manufacturer for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, after his wife sustained some injuries due to malfunctioning of their newer vehicle. 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 that disclaimed an implied warranty of merchantability was invalid. (1960) Rule of Law: Manufacturers cannot unjustly disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability when such disclaimers are clearly not the result of just bargaining. 1. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69. In the 1960 case Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors and the 1963 case Greenman v. Yuba PowerProducts, injured consumers were awarded damages based on their proving that the manufacturers of the defective products were negligent. The opinion of the court was delivered by FRANCIS, J. Monday, May 9, 1960 $1.25 Issue: Is the limited liability clause of the purchase contract valid and enforceable? I: Are the defendants liable for the breach of implied warranty of merchantability? Plaintiff sues under the implied warranty provided by the uniform sales act. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors case brief 1960. 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 HENNINGSEN v. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS, INC. This case is important because. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.. Facts: Plaintiff purchased a new car. 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 Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Class Notes. His wife was injured due the car's mechanical failure. … Facts: Plaintiff was injured while driving a car made by Chrysler and sold by defendant Bloomfield when something went wrong with the steering gear. Defendant contends that the warranty was disclaimed in the … Wife is driving husbands new car and steering goes out, she is injured and the car was a total loss. 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. 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-