Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 512.15 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1965 c 811 art 10 s 336.10-102]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1943–1970 · leading case: Dougall v. Brown Bay Boat Works & Sales, Inc., 178 N.W.2d 217 (Minn. 1970).
Dougall v. Brown Bay Boat Works & Sales, Inc., 178 N.W.2d 217 (Minn. 1970). “On the contrary, § 512.15 (2) provides that where goods are bought by description from a seller, whether he be the grower or manufacturer, “there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be of merchantable quality.”
Land O'Lakes Creameries, Inc. v. Commodity Credit Corp., 185 F. Supp. 412 (D. Minn. 1960). “” 30 Minn. Stat.Ann. §§ 512.15(1, 2) Uniform Sales Act § 15(1, 2).”
Kopet v. Klein, 148 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. 1967). “1961,§512.15(1), which provides: “Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it appears that the buyer relies on the seller’s skills or judgment * * *, there is an implied warranty that the…”
Torpey v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 129 F. Supp. 404 (D. Minn. 1955). “Minn. Stat. § 512.15 (1953), M.S.A. Therefore, this Court is not free to “re-examine the nature of a warranty” or to increase its scope in the interests of social justice.”
DeWitt v. Itasca-Mantrap Coop. Elec. Ass'n, 10 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. 1943). “1911, § 512.15(1), (Mason St. 1927, § 8390), which provides: “Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it appears that the buyer relies on the sellers shill or judgment (whether he be the…”
Donohue v. Acme Heating Sheet Metal & Roofing Co., 8 N.W.2d 618 (Minn. 1943). “1927, § 8390 [1]), which reads as follows: “Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it appears that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment (whether he be the grower or…”
Asbestos Prods. Inc. v. Ryan Landscape Supply Co., 163 N.W.2d 767 (Minn. 1968). “1961, § 512.15, upon which defendant relies, provides as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this chapter and of any statute in that behalf, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract to…”
Raymond v. J. R. Watkins Co., 88 F. Supp. 932 (D. Minn. 1950). “Defendant claims there was no privity of contract between the parties to the instant case because “there was no direct sale [by defendant] to the plaintiff”, citing 30 Minnesota Statutes Annotated, § 512.15. In the Pietrus case, supra, the defendant’s salesman sold the product…”
W. B. Miller & R. C. Richardson v. Dahlberg Co., 172 F. Supp. 238 (D. Minn. 1959). “§ 512.15) and that there was no conduct on the part of either of the defendants upon which a finding of fraudulent misrepresentation could be based.”
Minn. Stat. § 512.15(1): 3 cases
Kopet v. Klein, 148 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. 1967). “1961,§512.15(1), which provides: “Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it appears that the buyer relies on the seller’s skills or judgment * * *, there is an implied warranty that the…”
DeWitt v. Itasca-Mantrap Coop. Elec. Ass'n, 10 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. 1943). “1911, § 512.15(1), (Mason St. 1927, § 8390), which provides: “Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it appears that the buyer relies on the sellers shill or judgment (whether he be the…”
Donohue v. Acme Heating Sheet Metal & Roofing Co., 8 N.W.2d 618 (Minn. 1943). “1927, § 8390 [1]), which reads as follows: “Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it appears that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment (whether he be the grower or…”
Minn. Stat. § 512.15(3): 1 case
Land O'Lakes Creameries, Inc. v. Commodity Credit Corp., 185 F. Supp. 412 (D. Minn. 1960). “” 30 Minn. Stat.Ann. §§ 512.15(1, 2) Uniform Sales Act § 15(1, 2).”
Minn. Stat. § 512.15(4): 1 case
Dougall v. Brown Bay Boat Works & Sales, Inc., 178 N.W.2d 217 (Minn. 1970). “On the contrary, § 512.15 (2) provides that where goods are bought by description from a seller, whether he be the grower or manufacturer, “there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be of merchantable quality.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.