Smith v. WM. WRIGLEY JR. CO.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that FDUTPA makes “declaratory and injunctive relief available to a broader class of plaintiffs than could recover damages.”
• recognizing that privity may not be required for all express warranty claims
• holding, under circumstances similar to those presented in this case, that the plaintiff need not demonstrate privity in order to pursue a breach of warranty claim
• finding no privity requirement where “the express warranty the manufacturer allegedly breached is contained on the packaging of” the allegedly defective product
• describing the privity requirement in Florida express warranty 26 claims as “a moving target”
• describing the privity requirement under Florida warranty law as a “moving target”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).