Craig v. Pellet

Appellate Court of Illinois

Craig v. Pellet

209 Ill. App. 368

Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided January 30, 1918·No. Gen. No. 23,276·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.

5. Sales, § 252*—when no implied warranty as to fitness for purpose prior to Uniform Sales Act. Prior to the Uniform Sales Act of 1915 [Callaghan’s 1916 St. Supp. ¶ 1021(4) et seq.J, where the purchaser of a specified appliance did not rely on the judgment or skill of the seller hut was as familiar with the appliance as the seller, there was no implied warranty by the seller that the appliance was reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was bought.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.

5. Sales, § 252*—when no implied warranty as to fitness for purpose prior to Uniform Sales Act. Prior to the Uniform Sales Act of 1915 [Callaghan’s 1916 St. Supp. ¶ 1021(4) et seq.J, where the purchaser of a specified appliance did not rely on the judgment or skill of the seller hut was as familiar with the appliance as the seller, there was no implied warranty by the seller that the appliance was reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was bought.

Craig v. Pellet, 209 Ill. App. 368 (Ill. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

209 Ill. App. 368 (Craig v. Pellet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related