DiIenno v. Libbey Glass Division, Owens-Illinois, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff's claim for breach of expressed warranty must fail because “[t]here is no evidence in the record to suggest that [the plaintiff] ever saw the [defendant’s] catalog let alone relied on it when she purchased the [product]”
• rejecting strict liability claim and noting that “[i]f [the plaintiff] is to recover in this action it can only be under the UCC breach of warranty theory she alleges ... in her complaint”
• express warranty claim failed where there was no evidence plaintiff saw the warranty before making her purchase
• buyer’s claim that failure of jar to open and close without breaking was breach of § 2-315 warranty was “ridiculous” because opening and closing of jar are jar’s ordinary purpose
• “But it is not incumbent upon the defendants to prove the lack of a manufacturing defect. [The plaintiff] bears the burden of producing some evidence that the jar had a manufacturing defect at the time of sale.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).