Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 512.49 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
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[Repealed, 1965 c 811 art 10 s 336.10-102]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 12
cases, 1943–1987 · leading case: Truesdale v. Friedman, 132 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. 1965).
Truesdale v. Friedman, 132 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. 1965). “" Defendants by their assignments of error raise the following questions: (1) Whether it was error for the trial court to submit the case to the jury on an unpleaded breach of warranty theory after the case had been pleaded and tried only in fraud and a ruling had been made that…”
Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co., 170 N.W.2d 72 (Minn. 1969). ““Your customer may expect to hear from our Service Manager within the next two weeks indicating specifically, when, our field service man can get to his store with the necessary parts to undertake this work. “Very cordially yours, R. A. STANLEY” It is the claim of defendants…”
United States v. Am. Radiator & Stand. Sanitary Corp., 115 F. Supp. 422 (D. Minn. 1953). “§ 512.49 does not require notice in all cases is not convincing in that the instant case, on the face of the complaint, does not appear to be an ex *428 ception to the statutory requirement.”
Oliver-Elec. Mfg. Co. v. I. O. Teigen Constr. Co., 177 F. Supp. 572 (D. Minn. 1959). “These questions are whether the defendant’s laxness in asserting its claim for the delay constituted either waiver of the right to damages or failure to give notice of breach required by Section 49 of the Uniform Sales Act, Minn.Stat. Ann. § 512.49 and whether the acceptance of…”
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 154 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 1967). “1961, § 512.49, of the sales act. We cannot agree.”
N. States Power Co. v. Itt Meyer Indus., a Div. of Itt Grinnell Corp., 777 F.2d 405 (8th Cir. 1985). “2-607, and comment 2-607(3)(a) with Minn.Stat. 512.49. While there is no Minnesota court decision construing the adequacy of notice under the present section, decisions under the predecessor statute are consistent with this notice standard.”
State v. Patten, 416 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “* * * Even when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the record appears to indicate that at least 12 to 23 months elapsed between plaintiff’s actual awareness of any alleged defects and their first notification that they claimed damages * * *.”
Hemming v. Ald, Inc., 155 N.W.2d 384 (Minn. 1967). “1961, § 512.49; Truesdale v. Friedman, 270 Minn.”
Kopet v. Klein, 148 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. 1967). “1961, § 512.49, applicable here, provides: «* * * [j]f; after acceptance of the goods, the buyer fails to give notice to the seller of the breach of any promise or warranty within a reasonable time after the buyer knows, or ought to know of such breach, the seller shall not be…”
DeWitt v. Itasca-Mantrap Coop. Elec. Ass'n, 10 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. 1943). “It is admitted by the pleadings that it did not avail itself of the remedy provided within the time permitted; and hence, unless some fraudulent act of the plaintiff induced the association to waive its rights thereunder, it is clear that such paragraph bars it from asserting…”
Berry Asphalt Co. v. Apex Oil Prods. Co., 9 N.W.2d 437 (Minn. 1943). “1941, §§ 512.49, 512.69, 512.71 (Mason St. 1927, §§ 8428, 8443, 8445); and (3) that the trial court applied an incorrect measure of damages.”
Lawson & Nelson Sash & Door Co. v. Kraus-Anderson of St. Paul Co., 156 N.W.2d 208 (Minn. 1968). “1961, § 512.49. If this contract is not governed by the rules relating to building contracts, it is governed by the provisions of the sales act, which, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, must be held to modify the ride announced in Breen Stone Co.”
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.