J. Aron Company, Inc. v. Sills

148 N.E. 717, 240 N.Y. 588, 1925 N.Y. LEXIS 817
New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 31, 1925·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

*589 Per Curiam,.

This judgment must be affirmed. Doubtless the purpose for which these goods were required was at least by implication made known to the seller. Whether under the circumstances of this particular purchase any inference is possible that the buyer relied upon the seller’s skill or judgment we deed not decide. For even were the trial court in error as to the existence of an implied warranty that the goods in question were fit for human consumption, bought as they were by description from one who dealt in them, there was a warranty that they were of merchantable quality. If condensed milk is unfit for consumption, clearly it does not comply with this warranty. The seller may not complain if the jury is told that a warranty exists more limited in its scope than in truth is the fact.

His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

J. Aron Company, Inc. v. Sills, 148 N.E. 717, 240 N.Y. 588, 1925 N.Y. LEXIS 817 (N.Y. 1925).

148 N.E. 717 (J. Aron Company, Inc. v. Sills) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Smith
75 F. Supp. 156 (W.D. Arkansas, 1948)
Goljatowska v. Fred W Albrecht Co.
17 Ohio Law. Abs. 294 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1934)
Ryan v. Progressive Grocery Stores, Inc.
175 N.E. 105 (New York Court of Appeals, 1931)
Cohen v. Dugan Bros.
132 Misc. 896 (New York Supreme Court, 1928)
Abounader v. Strohmeyer & Arpe Co.
217 A.D. 43 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1926)