Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.

Facts

On May 7, 1955, Claus Henningsen bought a new Plymouth from Bloomfield Motors, an authorized dealer. Chrysler Corporation made the car. He intended it as a Mother's Day gift to his wife, Helen, and he said that intention was communicated to the dealer. He alone signed the one-page printed purchase order. Two paragraphs in very small type above the signature line referred to the back of the form. The back held ten paragraphs of fine print. Paragraph 7 said there were no warranties, express or implied, except the manufacturer's promise to make good at its factory defective parts returned with transportation charges prepaid within ninety days or 4,000 miles, whichever came first. It also said that promise was in place of all other obligations or liabilities. Claus did not read these terms, and no one pointed them out to him. The car was delivered on May 9, 1955. On May 19, with 468 miles on it, Helen was driving at 20-22 miles per hour on a smooth highway when she heard a loud noise. The steering wheel spun in her hands, and the car veered into a sign and a brick wall. No other vehicle was involved. The front of the car was so badly damaged that it was impossible to tell whether any part of the steering mechanism had been defective before the accident. An appraiser of damaged cars gave the opinion that something went wrong from the steering wheel down to the front wheels.

Issues

1. Does an implied warranty of merchantability from the manufacturer accompany a new car to the ultimate buyer even though the buyer bought from a dealer and had no contract with the manufacturer?
2. Is the standardized disclaimer of implied warranties and limitation of liability to replacing defective parts, printed on the purchase order, valid against the buyer and those claiming through him?
3. Can Mrs. Henningsen, who was not a party to the purchase contract, recover for breach of the implied warranty?

Holding

Chrysler's implied warranty of merchantability accompanied the new car to Claus Henningsen without privity, and both defendants' implied warranties extended to Helen as a member of his family. Their attempted disclaimers of that warranty, and of all obligations beyond replacing defective parts, were void as against public policy, and because the proof raised a jury question on breach, the judgments for the plaintiffs were affirmed.