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

plaintiffdefendantdamages

plaintiffdefendantliability

Related Cases

Ryan v. Progressive Grocery Stores, 255 N.Y. 388, 175 N.E. 105, 74 A.L.R. 339

Facts

Patrick Ryan, through his wife, purchased a loaf of bread from Progressive Grocery Stores. The loaf contained a pin that caused injury to Ryan's mouth. The case was brought against the grocery store for breach of warranty, leading to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for damages incurred due to the injury.

The plaintiff did not rely on the seller's skill or judgment. His wife stated to the salesman that she wished to have a loaf of ‘Ward's bread.’ The salesman gave her what she asked for, wrapped in a sealed package as it had come from the Ward Baking Company, the baker.

Issue

Did the defendant breach an implied warranty of merchantable quality by selling a loaf of bread that contained a concealed pin?

Rule

Where the goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description, there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be of merchantable quality.

‘Where the goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether he be the grower or manufacturer or not), there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be of merchantable quality.’ Personal Property Law, § 96 , subd. 2.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the sale of the bread constituted a breach of warranty under the Personal Property Law. It determined that despite the buyer specifying the brand, the presence of the pin rendered the bread unfit for consumption, thus breaching the warranty of merchantable quality. The court emphasized that the seller is liable for defects that are not discoverable upon inspection.

Loaves baked with pins in them are not of merchantable quality. The dealer is thus charged with liability, though the buyer selects the brand, just as he would be liable for concealed defects upon a sale of wool or silk.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the presence of the pin in the bread constituted a breach of the implied warranty of merchantable quality.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Who won?

The plaintiff, Patrick Ryan, prevailed in the case because the court found that the defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantable quality by selling bread that was not fit for consumption.

The plaintiff ought not to lose the benefit of his judgment because he fancied that he had brought himself within subdivision 1.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Mulcahy v. Eli Lilly & Co., 386 N.W.2d 67, 54 USLW 2566, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 10,982

Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, 291 N.W.2d 686

Morse v. Studin, 283 A.D.2d 622, 725 N.Y.S.2d 93

Thibert v. Milka, 419 Mass. 693, 646 N.E.2d 1025

Overbaugh v. McCutcheon, 183 W.Va. 386, 396 S.E.2d 153