Henningsen v - HELD: No. Affirmed. Void as against public...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. Sup Ct of NJ (1960) J. Francis P. 380 FACTS: Mr. Henningsen purchased a new Plymouth from D. P’s wife was injured when steering mechanism failed 10 days after delivery. Henningsen filed suit for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Sales Act. D claimed that warranty had been disclaimed by fine print on back of the purchase contract. Trial ct ruled for P. and D appealed. ISSUE: Whether or not the exculpation clause in fine print on the purchase contract negates the implied warranty.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: HELD: No. Affirmed. Void as against public policy due to contractual provision that tends toward the injury of the public. RULE: The warranty provided by D in standardized form for mass use is imposed upon the consumer. Without explanation of the exculpation clause, the consumer cannot be expected to understand what rights he/she is relinquishing. The implied warranty is provided by state legislature and cannot be avoided due to the necessity of consumer protection in the purchase of a dangerous instrument....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 06/15/2009 for the course LAW 577 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at University of Arizona- Tucson.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online