Sales - Privity - Disclaimer of Implied Warranty

Authors

Richard W. Odgers, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

Husband purchased a new automobile from a dealer. The contract of sale contained on its reverse side an express warranty from the manufacturer to the "original purchaser" providing for the replacement of any parts which were returned to the manufacturer and were in its judgment defective. The warranty was " ... expressly in lieu of all other warranties expressed or implied .... " The dealer warranty was substantially identical to that extended by the manufacturer; both adhered to the form prescribed by the Automobile Manufacturer's Association. Shortly after the delivery of the automobile, wife was injured in a collision caused by a defective steering mechanism. Wife instituted suit against both dealer and manufacturer to recover for personal injuries and husband joined to recover for property damage and consequential losses arising from his wife's injuries. The action was submitted to the jury on the issue of implied warranty of merchantability; judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs against both the manufacturer and dealer. On appeal, held, affirmed. The express disclaimer of implied warranty is invalid as against public policy; the implied warranty of merchantability extends from both the manufacturer and the dealer to the ultimate purchaser, members of his family, and to others occupying or using car with his consent. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 161 A.2d 69 (N.J. 1960).

Recommended Citation

Richard W. Odgers, Sales - Privity - Disclaimer of Implied Warranty, 59 Mich. L. Rev. 467 (1961).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol59/iss3/14