Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 41 > Issue 4 (1943)
The purchaser of a mechanical corn picker sued to recover the money paid for it, alleging that the seller had warranted that the machine was reasonably fit for the purpose whereas in use it missed a third of the ears, shelled some of those it did pick, husked others poorly and knocked down standing corn. The appellate court reversed a judgment for the defendant seller, because the trial court had instructed the jury that the warranty required only that the machine should do the work as satisfactorily as other mechanical pickers of that time would do it. Juvland V. Wood Bros. Thresher Co., 212 Minn. 310, 3 N. W. (2d) 772 (1942).
J. B. W.,
SALES - WARRANTY - SIGNIFICANCE OF PHRASE "REASONABLY FIT FOR PURPOSE",
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol41/iss4/16