Summary

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating Mach Company…

The position of plaintiff in error is, in the first place, that the evidence on his behalf tended to show an agreement between himself and defendant in error, entered into prior to or contemporaneously with the written contract, independent of the latter and collateral to it, that the machine purchased should have a certain capacity, and should be capable of doing certain work
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating Mach Company…

The rule invoked is that where a manufacturer contracts to supply an article which he manufactures, to be applied to a particular purpose, so that the buyer necessarily trusts to the judgment of the manufacturer, the law implies a promise or undertaking on his part that the article so manufactured and sole by him for a specific purpose, and to be used in a particular way, is reasonably fit and proper for the purpose for which he professes to make it, and for which it is known to be required
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating Mach Company…

We may add that, in the light of all the evidence in the record, treated as competent, we think no verdict could be permitted to stand which proceeded upon the ground of the existence of such a warranty as is contended for. The alleged antecedent representations as to whether the machine possessed sufficient refrigerating power to cool this brewery were no more than expressions of opinion, confessedly honestly entertained, and dependent upon other elements that the machine itself, concerning which plaintiff in error could form an opinion as well as defendant
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature