Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.
F: Baxter purchased a Ford ar from St. John Motors, who got the car from Ford's catalogues, given to Baxter prior to sale. The catalogue represented that the car had shatter-proof glass in the windshield. Baxter was injured when a pebble struck and shattered the window, causing glass to hit his eyes. Baxter lost sight in his left eye and the right eye was injured.
Px: Trial court refused to admit evidence of Ford's printed warranty. Court took the case from the jury and entered judgment for St. John and Ford. Baxter appealed.
Q/P: Can a tort action be maintained for breach of an express warranty, even when there is no privity of contract between the injured party and the warranting party?
- Holding: Yes. A tort action can be maintained for breach of an express warranty, even when there is no privity of contract between the injured party and the warranty party.
- Rule: No privity is required for recovery based on breach of express warranty.
Reasoning: Baxter reasonably relied upon Ford's printed warranty. He wasn't in a position to discover by reasonable investigation about the shatter-proof glass in the windshield.
Mazetti Rule: The original act of delivering the product is wrong when, because a product lacks certain qualities that the manufacturer had warranted, the article is not safe for ordinary use.