Getzoff v. Von Lengerke Buick Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Getzoff v. Von Lengerke Buick Co.

187 A. 539, 14 N.J. Misc. 750, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 266

DecidedSeptember 24, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A. 539 (Getzoff v. Von Lengerke Buick Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Getzoff v. Von Lengerke Buick Co., 187 A. 539, 14 N.J. Misc. 750, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 266 (N.J. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Ctjeiam.

Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff who purchased from it, a dealer, a new Pontiac sedan under a conditional sales contract. The contract provided as follows: “No warranties, expressed or implied, representations, promises or statements have been made by the seller unless endorsed hereon in writing.”

The ease was tried in the District Court without a jury. The state of the case, as settled, indicates that recovery was predicated upon the alleged breach of an implied warranty. The testimony received indicated that the car was defectively constructed. The parties having agreed that the written contract contained the terms of their bargain, evidence, to support recovery on the theory of an implied warranty of fitness, was inadmissible. It seems that the error was sufficiently raised in the court below and in the specifications before us.

Judgment is reversed.

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

Pee Ctjeiam.

Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff who purchased from it, a dealer, a new Pontiac sedan under a conditional sales contract. The contract provided as follows: “No warranties, expressed or implied, representations, promises or statements have been made by the seller unless endorsed hereon in writing.”

The ease was tried in the District Court without a jury. The state of the case, as settled, indicates that recovery was predicated upon the alleged breach of an implied warranty. The testimony received indicated that the car was defectively constructed. The parties having agreed that the written contract contained the terms of their bargain, evidence, to support recovery on the theory of an implied warranty of fitness, was inadmissible. It seems that the error was sufficiently raised in the court below and in the specifications before us.

Judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A. 539, 14 N.J. Misc. 750, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/getzoff-v-von-lengerke-buick-co-nj-1936.