Praxair, Inc. v. GENERAL INSULATION CO.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that allegations that the manufacturer and seller had “entered into a contract consisting of a distribution agreement to which [plaintiff] was a third-party beneficiary” was sufficient to state a claim for breach of implied warranty
• allowing tort action where insulation performed its function of maintaining temperature but caused severe acid damage to surrounding pipes
• stating claim for breach of implied warranty where purchaser lacked privity with manufacturer, but was a third-party beneficiary of a distribution contract between manufacturer and supplier
• tort recovery permissible where plaintiff alleged insulation performed its intended function of maintaining temperature, but nonetheless caused extensive damage to piping system when chloride in the insulation combined with moisture and formed acid

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).