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

plaintiffdefendant
plaintiffdefendanttrial

Related Cases

Sindi v. El-Moslimany, 896 F.3d 1
View Case »
Hawthorne v. Gunn, 123 Cal.App. 452, 11 P.2d 411
View Case »
Doe v. TCI Cablevision, 110 S.W.3d 363, 67 U.S.P.Q.2d 1604, 31 Media L. Rep. 2025
View Case »
Gersten v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 52 N.J.Super. 152, 145 A.2d 56
View Case »
Hudson v. Gaitan, 675 S.W.2d 699
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Spiegel v. Saks 34th St., 43 Misc.2d 1065, 252 N.Y.S.2d 852

Facts

In October 1960, the plaintiff-wife learned about Ultra Nadinola through an advertisement that claimed the product was clinically proven and safe. After purchasing the cream from Saks 34th Street, she applied it to her hands, resulting in severe burning, blistering, and inflammation. Medical examination confirmed that the injuries were due to the application of the cream, which the plaintiff had never experienced before.

The evidence adduced at the trial establishes that in October 1960 a product known as Ultra Nadinola, manufactured by defendant National Toilet Co. and sold by defendant Saks 34th Street, came to the attention of plaintiff-wife by reason of an advertisement in The Daily News. The advertisement, showing Saks 34th Street as the vendor, reads as follows: Not just another cosmetic * * * a completely new formula containing DIMATRON * * * actually searches out and acts directly on deep-seated discolorations of the skin.

Issue

Did the defendants breach an express warranty regarding the safety of the skin cream, Ultra Nadinola, which led to the plaintiff's injuries?

Did the defendants breach an express warranty regarding the safety of the skin cream, Ultra Nadinola, which led to the plaintiff's injuries?

Rule

An express warranty is created when a seller makes an affirmation of fact or promise relating to the goods that induces the buyer to purchase them, and the buyer relies on that affirmation.

An express warranty is created when a seller makes an affirmation of fact or promise relating to the goods that induces the buyer to purchase them, and the buyer relies on that affirmation.

Analysis

The court applied the rule of express warranty by examining the advertisements and packaging of Ultra Nadinola, which explicitly stated that the product was safe and non-irritating. The evidence presented showed that the plaintiff suffered injuries directly after using the product, which was marketed under the express representation of safety. The court found that the defendants failed to provide adequate evidence to counter the plaintiff's claims.

The court applied the rule of express warranty by examining the advertisements and packaging of Ultra Nadinola, which explicitly stated that the product was safe and non-irritating. The evidence presented showed that the plaintiff suffered injuries directly after using the product, which was marketed under the express representation of safety. The court found that the defendants failed to provide adequate evidence to counter the plaintiff's claims.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the defendants breached the express warranty that the product was safe for use.

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the defendants breached the express warranty that the product was safe for use.

Who won?

Plaintiffs prevailed in the case because the court found sufficient evidence that the defendants breached the express warranty regarding the safety of the product.

Plaintiffs prevailed in the case because the court found sufficient evidence that the defendants breached the express warranty regarding the safety of the product.

You must be