Hasek v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a warranty that promised in writing to “cover[***] the cost of all parts and labor needed to repair or adjust any [***] supplied item *** that prove[d] defective” was a written warranty under the Act
• reasoning that, although the plaintiff had shown the existence of a design defect, judgment for the defendant was appropriate because the express warranty did not, by its contractual terms, cover design defects
• reasoning that, although the plaintiff had shown the existence of a design defect, judgment for the defendant was appropriate because the express warranty did not, by its contractual terms, cover design defects
• reasoning that, although the plaintiff had shown the existence of a design defect, judgment for the defendant was appropriate because the express warranty did not, by its contractual terms, cover design defects
• engine noise, without further indication of defect, is not enough to establish liability for breach of express warranty
• “[D]efects in material and workmanship refer to departures from a product’s intended design while design defects refer to the inadequacy of the design itself.” (interpreting Indiana law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).