Fuller v. Outlet Co.

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Fuller v. Outlet Co.

6 R.I. Dec. 105

Superior Court of Rhode Island·Decided March 17, 1930·No. No. 82845·Published

Opinion

BLODGETT. It J.

Heard upon demurrer to declaration.

Action, trespass on the case for that ■plaintiff, relying on the skill and judgment of .defendant, purchased one chocolate covered cherry cocktail, and upon attempting to eat the same broke a tooth upon a piece of a nail imbedded in the same.

The action is not based upon negligence but upon an implied warranty on the part of defendant that said candy .contained no dangerous substance. The action is not brought against the maker of said .candy but against the retailer.

It is difficult to see how a retailer could warrant against a hidden defect as there was no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant.

Demurrer sustained.

Minutilla vs. Providence Ice Cream Co., 50 R. I. 45-46.

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

BLODGETT. It J.

Heard upon demurrer to declaration.

Action, trespass on the case for that ■plaintiff, relying on the skill and judgment of .defendant, purchased one chocolate covered cherry cocktail, and upon attempting to eat the same broke a tooth upon a piece of a nail imbedded in the same.

The action is not based upon negligence but upon an implied warranty on the part of defendant that said candy .contained no dangerous substance. The action is not brought against the maker of said .candy but against the retailer.

It is difficult to see how a retailer could warrant against a hidden defect as there was no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant.

Demurrer sustained.

Minutilla vs. Providence Ice Cream Co., 50 R. I. 45-46.

Fuller v. Outlet Co., 6 R.I. Dec. 105 (R.I. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

6 R.I. Dec. 105 (Fuller v. Outlet Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.