Mazetti v. Armour & Co.

Citations

• 75 Wash. 622
• 135 P. 633
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1760

Syllabus

<p>Food — Implied Warranty — Original Packages eor Use oe Ultimate Consumer — Liability to Retailer. There is an implied warranty of food products put up for the use of the ultimate consumer in original packages which are sealed and not open to inspection; and liability thereon is not limited to the ultimate consumer or dependent upon privity of contract, hut extends to a retailer 'who was damaged by loss of trade and reputation through the fault or breach of duty of the manufacturer.</p> <p>Food — Implied Warranty — Negligence—Liability to Retailer. There is an exception to the rule that a manufacturer is not liable on an implied or express warranty to any person other than his immediate vendee, where food products were put up in sealed packages for the use of the ultimate consumer, who alone could discover the unfitness of the contents, since right and reason require that any party injured may recover of the first offender without resorting to a circumlocution of actions against intervening agents.</p> <p>Courts — Rule oe Decisions — Exceptions. The courts will, if free from statutory restraint, declare an exception to a rule that does not square with justice, where the case is not an isolated instance, but general in its character.</p> <p>Food — Negligence—Violation oe Pure Food Law — Presumptions. The presumption of negligence from a violation of the pure food law is available to a retailer of sealed packages who depends upon established brands to sustain his reputation as a dealer; since the product was intended for the use of all who handle it in trade as well as those who consume it.</p>