Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that implied warranties do not fall within the future performance exception and collecting cases from other states
• ruling that notice by filing a lawsuit was insufficient as a matter of law
• stating that “[p]rivity is generally not required for liability on an express warranty because it is deemed fair to impose responsibility on one who makes affirmative claims as to the merits of the product, upon which the remote consumer presumably relies”
• “the majority view is that the [Future Performance] exception must be 18 narrowly construed . . . .”
• “To recover on a breach of warranty cause of action, the plaintiff must show the breach caused the plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss[,] or harm.”
• vertical privity “means that the buyer and seller were parties to the sales contract”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).