Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractdefendantjurisdictiondamagesregulationappellant
plaintiffappellantappellee

Related Cases

Godwin v. Lindbert, 101 Mich.App. 754, 300 N.W.2d 514
View Case »
Time-Share Systems, Inc. v. Schmidt, 397 N.W.2d 438
View Case »
Swank v. Elwert, 55 Or. 487, 105 P. 901
View Case »
Robert L. Cloud & Associates, Inc. v. Mikesell, 69 Cal.App.4th 1141, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 143, 14 IER Cases 1407, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1087, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1350, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1415
View Case »
Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v. Rieder, 19 N.Y.3d 511, 973 N.E.2d 743, 950 N.Y.S.2d 333, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05200
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kassab v. Central Soya, 432 Pa. 217, 246 A.2d 848, 5 UCC Rep.Serv. 925

Facts

Mr. and Mrs. Kassab, engaged in breeding Charolais cattle, ordered a specific cattle feed from Pritts, which was to be blended according to a formula they had previously used. The feed contained a supplement, Cattle Blend, manufactured by Central Soya, which unbeknownst to the Kassabs, included stilbestrol, a synthetic hormone harmful to breeding cattle. After feeding this mixture to their herd, the Kassabs experienced abortions in their cows and sterility in their bull, leading them to suspect the feed caused these issues. A chemical analysis confirmed the presence of stilbestrol in the feed, which was not labeled as required by federal regulations.

Fearing that the feed supplement used in appellants' formula had somehow caused the malfunctioning of the Kassab's cattle, a chemical analysis was made which revealed the presence of a drug known as ‘stilbestrol’ in the feed, and more particularly in the feed supplement, Cattle Blend.

Issue

Whether the absence of privity between the appellants and the manufacturer, Central Soya, precludes the appellants from recovering damages for breach of implied warranty.

The Supreme Court, No. 213, March Term, 1967, Roberts, J., held that showing of privity is no longer necessary in assumpsit suits by purchasers against remote manufacturers for breach of implied warranty.

Rule

The court ruled that privity of contract is not necessary for purchasers to maintain an action against remote manufacturers for breach of implied warranty in Pennsylvania.

Judgment vacated, and record remanded with directions.

Analysis

The court found that the feed supplied by Central Soya did not meet the requirements of merchantability, as it was not fit for the ordinary purpose of feeding to breeding cattle and was improperly labeled. The court acknowledged that the presence of stilbestrol in the feed constituted a breach of warranty, despite the defendants' argument that they were not liable due to lack of privity. The court decided to eliminate the privity requirement, aligning Pennsylvania with a growing trend in other jurisdictions.

However, it is also conceded that stilbestrol is a synthetic hormone which stilbestrol be so labeled and that in animals, inducing heat and abortions in cows and sterility in bulls.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the appellants to demonstrate the damages caused by the breach of warranty.

We thus must vacate the judgment below and remand this cause to afford appellants an opportunity to demonstrate, if they can, that their cattle have become unmarketable as breeding animals and that this fact is a proximate result of the ingestation of appellees' feed.

Who won?

The appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Kassab, prevailed because the court recognized that the presence of stilbestrol in the feed constituted a breach of warranty, and the elimination of the privity requirement allowed them to seek damages from the manufacturer.

The court declared that it was basing its decision of no breach of warranty on its finding that plaintiffs failed to establish that the tainted feed caused any injury to their cattle.

You must be