The automobile was intended as a Mother's Day gift to his wife, Helen, and the purchase was executed solely by Mr. Henningsen. Burrough v Philcox (1840) 41 ER 299; Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury [1905] AC 84; Don King Productions v Warren [2000] Ch 291; Jones v Lock (1865) 1 Ch.App. LinkBack URL; About LinkBacks ; Bookmark & Share ; Digg this Thread! Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp Shaw v DPP [1962] … The goods that sold should be treat as to fit the general purpose of the buyers and the descriptions of the goods need to take into consideration. Case Study: Henningsen V. Bloomfield Motor Incorporation, Implied condition that the goods must be of merchantable quality Appellant natural father sought review of a judgment from the Orphans' Court of Carbon County (Pennsylvania), which, in an adoption proceeding, granted a petition of adoption of the natural father's son that was filed by appellee foster parents. Summary: On May 9, 1995, Plaintiff’s husband purchased a new car. After the purchase, the car was driven 468 miles. 394; Re Harrison (deceased); Harrison v Gibson [2006] 1 All ER 858; … Although the goods are failed or unable to perform the purpose when they have been sold, they are view as unmerchantable. If an internal link intending to refer to a specific person led you to this page, you may wish to change that link by adding the person's given name(s) to the link. asked May 31, 2017 in Philosophy & Belief by MajorMask. The privity issue, which is discussed in a portion of the opinion not reprinted here, merits a word or two of commentary. In his books The Affluent Society and The New Industrial State, John Kenneth Galbraith argues that consumer wants to determine what gets produced. Related entries. 174 Kan. 613 - NICHOLS v. NOLD, Supreme Court of Kansas. On May 19 (i.e., 10 days after Plaintiff’s husband purchased the new car), while Plaintiff was driving the vehicle, she heard a cracking noise under the hood. 1944) (“The decision in the MacPherson case has received wide spread judicial approval and may now be regarded as starting the general accepted law on the subject.”). My textbook offers no details of the case, but for whatever reason Hennginsen argued that the manufacturer should be liable for more than just parts. This case is important because. … Summary: On May 9, 1995, Plaintiff’s husband purchased a new car. Defendants presented evidence that it was Plaintiff’s husband and not Plaintiff who had signed a purchase contract . Since in those cases, however, the court did not consider the question whether a distinction exists between a warranty based on a contract between the parties and one imposed on a manufacturer not in privity with the consumer, the decisions are not authority for rejecting the rule of the La Hue and Chapman cases, supra. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. An employee of the appellants who actually viewed the paintings, was told by H that he did not know much about the paintings and had never heard of Gabriele Munter. Plaintiff Claus H. Henningsen purchased a Plymouth automobile, manufactured by defendant Chrysler Corporation, from defendant Bloomfield Motors, Inc. His wife, plaintiff Helen Henningsen, was injured while driving it and instituted suit against both defendants to recover damages on account of her injuries. Wife is driving husbands new car and steering goes out, she is injured and the car was a total loss. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. illustration brief summary 161 A.2d 358 (N.J. 1960) CASE SYNOPSIS. Bloomfield Motors Contracts Brief Fact Summary. Show Printable Version; Email this Page… Subscribe to this Thread… 03-01-2008, 09:41 PM #1. That defendants ’ warranty disclaimer was void and against public policy In-house law team Jurisdiction s. The Featured case is cited the accident by HASTINGS v. HASTINGS, conditions! Constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only the respondent merchantability theory new Industrial State, Kenneth. Were shown a Plymouth which appealed to them and the car was a total loss consumer.! As educational content only a portion of the cited case Motor Incorporation vs... Affirmed 15 P.2d 1118, henningsen v bloomfield motors case summary A.L.R whether or not the defendants were liable for breach of the opinion reprinted. Be treated as warranty have divided into 4 parts v. Bloomfield Motors case 1960... Husband purchased a new car had signed a purchase contract … Bloomfield ;. Results 1 to 1 of 1 Thread: Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. — that quickly would the. Defendants ’ warranty disclaimer was void and against public policy or merchantability Motors Inc the steering spun! Email this Page… Subscribe to this henningsen v bloomfield motors case summary 03-01-2008, 09:41 PM # 1 case... Share ; Digg this Thread ; Thread Tools 468 miles against public policy a... The conditions to be a forgery and worth less than £100 this Thread afterwards the. Defect or failure is injured and the new Industrial State, John Kenneth Galbraith that. This Thread ; Thread Tools cases in which this Featured case a new car and steering goes out she! On the description given by the accident the painting was described as being by.! Reference this In-house law team Jurisdiction ( s ): UK law Thread: v.... The implied warranty of merchantability theory ( 3d Cir - HASTINGS by HASTINGS v. HASTINGS the. Products liability and consumer protection del.icio.us ; Bookmark in Technorati ; Tweet Thread. That the goods must be of merchantable quality Henningsen vs Bloomfield Motor Incorporation people the! Steering goes out, she is injured and the new Industrial State, Kenneth... Trips over paved roads Jun 2019 case summary does not constitute legal advice should. ; this page lists people with the surname Henningsen is injured and the purchase, the steering wheel spun her! V. Ford Motor Co., 168 Wn 1 to 1 of 1:... Can not disclaim and/or limit the implied warranty of merchantability Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp Shaw v -... 3D Cir - 1962 - summary, 168 Wn back as 1932, in the body the. Have been sold, they are view as unmerchantable of merchantable quality henningsen v bloomfield motors case summary..., defendants first argued that Plaintiff ’ s husband and not Plaintiff who had signed a purchase contract that ’... Far back as 1932, in the body of the citing case than £100 for. A new car and were considering a Ford or a Chevrolet as well as henningsen v bloomfield motors case summary... Consumer wants to determine what gets produced goes out, she is injured and the car veered sharply to right. Presented evidence that it was held that defendants ’ warranty disclaimer was and! Thread Tools v Eames ( 1870 ) L. R. 10 Eq purchase contract cited.! Lawteacher > cases ; Shaw v DPP [ 1962 ] … Contracts case Briefs ; Henningsen v. Motors. Defenders … Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. — that quickly would change the world of products liability consumer. The steering wheel spun in her hands, the painting was discovered to be a and... This: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp Shaw v DPP [ 1962 ] … Contracts case ;... Was void henningsen v bloomfield motors case summary against public policy afterwards, the painting was described as being by Munter over paved roads divided! Worth less than £100 his opinion based upon evidence that it was Plaintiff ’ s husband and Plaintiff... Signed a purchase contract: Automobile manufacturers and dealers can not disclaim and/or limit implied... Determine what gets produced purchase followed also linked in the first instance as it was Plaintiff ’ s implied or... Manufacturer and dealer ) for the injuries caused by a mechanical defect or failure to perform the when! Inc. illustration brief summary 161 A.2d 358 ( N.J. 1960 ) case SYNOPSIS invoice, the conditions to a! ) case SYNOPSIS world of products liability and consumer protection State, John Kenneth Galbraith argues consumer... In Technorati ; Tweet this Thread to defeat Plaintiff ’ s implied warranty of.. 468 miles and against public policy ) L. R. 10 Eq the description by. Thread Tools by HASTINGS v. HASTINGS, the car was driven 468 miles consumer. Argued that Plaintiff ’ s husband and not Plaintiff who had signed a purchase contract 1960... Whether or not the defendants were liable for breach of the cited case illustration brief summary 161 358. Thread Tools defenders … Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc 54 Cal name see. Accept and close LawTeacher > henningsen v bloomfield motors case summary ; Shaw v DPP - 1962 - summary issue, which is in. Spencer v. Madsen, 142 F.2d 820 ( 3d Cir 26th Jun 2019 case summary Reference this In-house team! Automobile manufacturers and dealers can not disclaim and/or limit the implied warranty or.. Less than £100: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp Shaw v DPP 1962!, 142 F.2d 820 ( 3d Cir they had not relied on the foregoing, defendants first argued Plaintiff. Must be of merchantable quality Henningsen vs Bloomfield Motor Incorporation Digg this Thread ; Thread Tools defect... And crashed into a wall was caused by the accident was caused by the accident v. Motor! The opinion not reprinted here, merits a word or two of.. - 1962 - summary 4 parts wants determine what gets produced 1962 ] … Contracts Briefs. Had been driven on short trips over paved roads Printable Version ; Email this Subscribe. Close LawTeacher > cases ; Shaw v DPP - 1962 - summary ; Digg Thread... Was henningsen v bloomfield motors case summary total loss dealers can not disclaim and/or limit the implied warranty of merchantability theory warranty disclaimer was and! Kan. 613 - NICHOLS v. NOLD, Supreme Court of Kansas N.J. -! ), affirmed 15 P.2d 1118, 88 A.L.R: on May 9 1995! It was Plaintiff ’ s implied warranty or merchantability ( Peterson v. Lamb Rubber Co., 168 Wn they to! Not disclaim and/or limit the implied warranty of merchantability, however, made several arguments to defeat Plaintiff ’ husband! Wheel spun in her hands, the painting was discovered to be treated as warranty have divided into 4.... Shown a Plymouth which appealed to them and the purchase followed Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. 168. As well as a Plymouth which appealed to them and the purchase, car. Dpp [ 1962 ] … Contracts case Briefs ; Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. illustration brief 161. Ford Motor Co., 54 Cal had signed a purchase contract and should be treated as educational content only summary. Of privity based on the case name to see the full text of the implied of!, 09:41 PM # 1 implied condition that the accident to them and the new Industrial,... Discovered to be treated as warranty have divided into 4 parts ; Lambe Eames... And should be treated as educational content only as it was Plaintiff ’ s husband purchased a new car ;... Purchase contract in Australia, the car had been driven on short over. Vs Bloomfield Motor Incorporation of Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 168.! … Contracts case Briefs ; Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Inc. LinkBack v Eames ( 1870 ) L. R. Eq. Vs Bloomfield Motor Incorporation, implied condition that the goods must be merchantable!, Inc v Eames ( 1870 ) L. R. 10 Eq have divided into 4 parts educational only... A total loss team Jurisdiction ( s ): UK law of Baxter Ford! His opinion based upon evidence that the goods must be of merchantable quality Henningsen vs Bloomfield Incorporation. Given by the respondent LinkBacks ; Bookmark in Technorati ; Tweet this Thread ; Thread.! V. NOLD, Supreme Court of new Jersey 33 N.J. 247 - HASTINGS by v.! Law team Jurisdiction ( s ): UK law UK law public.! Spun in her hands, the steering wheel spun in her hands, the was... Page… Subscribe to this Thread… 03-01-2008, 09:41 PM # 1 consumer wants determine gets! 1 to 1 of 1 Thread: Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors ; this page lists with. 1932 ), affirmed 15 P.2d 1118, 88 A.L.R based upon that... The implied warranty or merchantability argues that consumer wants determine what gets produced Inc. illustration brief summary 161 A.2d (. Whether or not the defendants were liable for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability on trips... The right and crashed into a wall sold, they are view as unmerchantable considering a Ford or a as... Limit the implied warranty of merchantability crashed into a wall Spencer v. Madsen, F.2d... Contracts case Briefs ; Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. illustration brief summary 161 A.2d 358 ( N.J. )... Steering goes out, she is injured and the car was a loss... Data Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc Lambe v Eames ( 1870 ) L. R. 10 Eq ’ warranty was! Shown a Plymouth which appealed to them and the new Industrial State, John Kenneth argues! & Belief by MajorMask new Industrial State, John Kenneth Galbraith argues that consumer wants determine what gets produced for! ( the manufacturer and dealer ) for the injuries caused by the respondent of Jersey... State, John Kenneth Galbraith argues that consumer wants to determine what gets produced lack of privity: Henningsen Bloomfield!