implied warranty claim in California

1995(See Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.2d at p. 59 ; Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, 24 Cal.2d at p. 453 ; Sacramento Regional Transit Dist. v. Grumman Flxible, supra, 158 Cal.App.3d at p. 292 ; Soule v. General Motors Corp., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 557 .) The only decision cited by real parties that deals with an implied warranty claim is Hauter, supra, 14 Cal.3d at page 109 .

1986Beginning its analytical review of the development of the tort of strict liability, starting with Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 697 , 377 P.2d 897 , 13 A.L.R.3d 1049 ], and of the *1094 development of duties and liability of a landlord, Becker pointed to the historical basis of strict liability in the implied warranty doctrine of fitness for intended use. 2 Moreover, throughout its opinion, the Becker court paralleled the development of these two related doctrines, implied warranty and strict liability in tort, in departing from the early common law t

2024DISCUSSION Summary judgment “provide[s] courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 844 .) The moving party bears the burden to make a prima facie showing that no triable issue of material fact exists.

2010Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 2 Cal.3d 285 , made it clear that liability might be imposed in the absence of an intentional failure to disclose when the disclosure “would have eliminated or materially qualified the misleading effect of [the public entity’s positive representation].” (Welch, at p. 556.) And in Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at page 552, the court observed: “[C]areless failure to disclose information may form the basis for an implied warranty claim if the defendant possesses superior knowledge inaccessible to the contracto

2010Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 2 Cal.3d 285 , made it clear that liability might be imposed in the absence of an intentional failure to disclose when the disclosure "would have eliminated or materially qualified the misleading effect of [the public entity's positive representation]." ( Welch, at p. 556.) And in Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at page 552 , the court observed: "[C]areless failure to disclose information may form the basis for an implied warranty claim if the defendant possesses superior knowledge inaccessible to the contrac

2010Most notably, the federal courts employ a standard developed out of the decision in Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. U.S. (1963) 160 Ct.Cl. 437 [ 312 F.2d 774 ], The plaintiff in that case was the low bidder on a project to produce quantities of a disinfectant for the United States Army.

2010Most notably, the federal courts employ a standard developed out of the decision in Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. U.S. (1963) 160 Ct.Cl. 437 [ 312 F.2d 774 ].

2010Most notably, the federal courts employ a standard developed out of the decision in Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. U.S. (1963) 160 Ct.Cl. 437 [ 312 F.2d 774 ], The plaintiff in that case was the low bidder on a project to produce quantities of a disinfectant for the United States Army.

2010Most notably, the federal courts employ a standard developed out of the decision in Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. U.S. (1963) 160 Ct.Cl. 437 [ 312 F.2d 774 ].

2008Although we agree that vertical privity is a necessary element of an implied warranty claim, we conclude the circumstances here come within the “direct dealings” exception to the privity requirement set forth in U.S. Roofing, Inc. v. Credit Alliance Corp. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1431 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 533 ] (U.S. Roofing).

2008Although we agree that vertical privity is a necessary element of an implied warranty claim, we conclude the circumstances here come within the “direct dealings” exception to the privity requirement set forth in U.S. Roofing, Inc. v. Credit Alliance Corp. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1431 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 533 ] (U.S. Roofing).

2007(Welch, supra, 139 Cal.App.3d at p. 556 .) Thus, Welch is consistent with the general rule that silence alone is not actionable.

1995(See Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.2d at p. 59 ; Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, 24 Cal.2d at p. 453 ; Sacramento Regional Transit Dist. v. Grumman Flxible, supra, 158 Cal.App.3d at p. 292 ; Soule v. General Motors Corp., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 557 .) The only decision cited by real parties that deals with an implied warranty claim is Hauter, supra, 14 Cal.3d at page 109 .

1995(See Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.2d at p. 59 ; Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, 24 Cal.2d at p. 453 ; Sacramento Regional Transit Dist. v. Grumman Flxible, supra, 158 Cal.App.3d at p. 292 ; Soule v. General Motors Corp., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 557 .) The only decision cited by real parties that deals with an implied warranty claim is Hauter, supra, 14 Cal.3d at page 109 .

1995(See Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.2d at p. 59 ; Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, 24 Cal.2d at p. 453 ; Sacramento Regional Transit Dist. v. Grumman Flxible, supra, 158 Cal.App.3d at p. 292 ; Soule v. General Motors Corp., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 557 .) The only decision cited by real parties that deals with an implied warranty claim is Hauter, supra, 14 Cal.3d at page 109 .

1995(See Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.2d at p. 59 ; Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, 24 Cal.2d at p. 453 ; Sacramento Regional Transit Dist. v. Grumman Flxible, supra, 158 Cal.App.3d at p. 292 ; Soule v. General Motors Corp., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 557 .) The only decision cited by real parties that deals with an implied warranty claim is Hauter, supra, 14 Cal.3d at page 109 .

1992(Prosser, The Assault Upon the Citadel (Strict Liability to the Consumer) (1960) 69 Yale L.J. 1099 , 1106.) (1) A review of the California cases reveals that the acceptance of an implied warranty rule against manufacturers in cases involving unfit foodstuffs was based on the rationale that a manufacturer that sold food items could no longer hide behind the shield of privity to absolve itself of liability. ( Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd. (1939) 14 Cal.2d 272 [ 93 P.2d 799 ] ( Klein ); Vaccarezza v. Sanguinetti (1945) 71 Cal. App.2d 687 [ 163 P.2d 470 ] ( Vaccarezza ).) In Klein, supra, 14

1992(Prosser, The Assault Upon the Citadel (Strict Liability to the Consumer) (1960) 69 Yale L.J. 1099 , 1106.) (1) A review of the California cases reveals that the acceptance of an implied warranty rule against manufacturers in cases involving unfit foodstuffs was based on the rationale that a manufacturer that sold food items could no longer hide behind the shield of privity to absolve itself of liability. ( Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd. (1939) 14 Cal.2d 272 [ 93 P.2d 799 ] ( Klein ); Vaccarezza v. Sanguinetti (1945) 71 Cal. App.2d 687 [ 163 P.2d 470 ] ( Vaccarezza ).) In Klein, supra, 14

1992(Prosser, The Assault Upon the Citadel (Strict Liability to the Consumer) (1960) 69 Yale L.J. 1099 , 1106.) (1) A review of the California cases reveals that the acceptance of an implied warranty rule against manufacturers in cases involving unfit foodstuffs was based on the rationale that a manufacturer that sold food items could no longer hide behind the shield of privity to absolve itself of liability. ( Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd. (1939) 14 Cal.2d 272 [ 93 P.2d 799 ] ( Klein ); Vaccarezza v. Sanguinetti (1945) 71 Cal. App.2d 687 [ 163 P.2d 470 ] ( Vaccarezza ).) In Klein, supra, 14

1992(Prosser, The Assault Upon the Citadel (Strict Liability to the Consumer) (1960) 69 Yale L.J. 1099 , 1106.) (1) A review of the California cases reveals that the acceptance of an implied warranty rule against manufacturers in cases involving unfit foodstuffs was based on the rationale that a manufacturer that sold food items could no longer hide behind the shield of privity to absolve itself of liability. ( Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd. (1939) 14 Cal.2d 272 [ 93 P.2d 799 ] ( Klein ); Vaccarezza v. Sanguinetti (1945) 71 Cal. App.2d 687 [ 163 P.2d 470 ] ( Vaccarezza ).) In Klein, supra, 14

1984Plaintiffs’ reliance upon Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647 [ 320 P.2d 16 , 65 A.L.R.2d 1358 ], as support for the proposition that privity is no longer a requirement in the implied warranty context, is unavailing.

1984Plaintiffs’ reliance upon Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647 [ 320 P.2d 16 , 65 A.L.R.2d 1358 ], as support for the proposition that privity is no longer a requirement in the implied warranty context, is unavailing.

1984“It is settled law in California that privity between the parties is a necessary element to recovery on a breach of an implied warranty of fitness for the buyer’s use, with exceptions not applicable here. {Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 682 , 695-696 . . . .)” {Anthony v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 442, 448 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 113 ].) Anthony v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., supra, held that a demurrer was properly sustainable to a cause of action based upon breach of an implied warranty where lack of privity between plaintiff and defendant was disclosed on the face of the complaint.

1979In the Green v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.3d 616 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 517 P.2d 1168 ], case the trial court found for the landlord after expressly refusing to permit the implied warranty defense to be asserted.

1979In the Green v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.3d 616 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 517 P.2d 1168 ], case the trial court found for the landlord after expressly refusing to permit the implied warranty defense to be asserted.