LILY-TULIP CUP CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERTA L. BERNSTEIN AND AKIBA BERNSTEIN, HER HUSBAND, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower appellate court's decision, holding that privity of contract is not required for a consumer to sue a manufacturer for breach of implied warranty, even if the product is not dangerous or food.
No, privity of contract is not an essential element for a consumer to bring an action against a manufacturer for breach of implied warranty.
“We must decide whether privity of contract is required to support an action by a consumer against a manufacturer for breach of implied warranty of a product that is neither a dangerous instrumentality nor a foodstuff.”
This quote states the central legal question the court was asked to decide.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondents, consumers, sued petitioner, a manufacturer, for breach of implied warranty regarding a product they purchased. The lower appellate court …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Implied Warranty cases and more on FLexlaw
The case sub judice comes to this Court on a petition for certiorari based on a question certified to be of great public interest by the Court of Appeal, Third District. We must decide whether privity of contract is required to support an action by a consumer against a manufacturer for breach of implied warranty of a product that is neither a dangerous instrumentality nor a foodstuff.
In the decision under review the District Court held that privity is not an essential element of the cause of action. Bernstein v. Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation, Fla.App. 1965, 177 So.2d 362.
We have carefully reviewed the opinion submitted to us. It is in accord with the law of this jurisdiction. We, therefore, approve the opinion of the District Court in all respects. The writ is discharged.
It is so ordered.
*642THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, O’CONNELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
ROBERTS and CALDWELL, JJ., dissent.
DREW, J., heard argument but did not participate in decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Inc., 336 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1976)…ed warranty. However, upon our review of the law we conclude that privity no longer obtains in an implied warranty suit by a consumer against a manufacturer.” On certiorari, this opinion was approved by this Court. Lily-Tulip Cup Corp. v. Berstein, 181 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1966). We made further inroads into the elimination of privity when the product involved was dangerous or an inherently dangerous instrumentality. See Hicks & Sternlieb, Products Warranty Law in Florida — A Realistic Overview, 25 U.Miami L.Rev…
-
Creviston v. Gen. Motors Corp. & J. W. Whitesides, 225 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1969)…contracts, we note the forward trend in the area of products liability cast considerable doubt on the classification of a breach of such a warranty as ex contractu. See Prosser, Torts, § 83 (2d ed. 1955); Lily-Tulip Cup Corp. v. Bernstein, Fla.1946, 181 So. 2d 641; Manheim v. Ford Motor Co., Fla.1967, 201 So. 2d 440. . See Lopueki, Statute of Limitations in Warranty, 21 U.Fla.LJEtev. 236 (1969).…
-
Russell v. Cmty. Blood Bank, Inc., 185 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…g process; (4) the drug has not been infected with some adulterating foreign substance. * * * ” 174 So. 2d at 739. Similar warranties might be said to run from a blood bank to the ultimate consumer. See Lily-Tulip Cup Corp. v. Bernstein, Fla. 1966, 181 So. 2d 641; Spencer v. Carl’s Markets, Inc., supra; and Blanton v. Cudahy Packing Co., supra. We have discussed the implied warranties which may be applicable to the sale of blood while assuming that its properties are such that it falls into the category of…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bertram Yacht Yard, Inc. v. Fla. Wire & Rigging Works, Inc., 177 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Bernstein v. Lily-Tulip CUP Corp., 177 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)