Szajna v. General Motors Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• refusing to extend implied warranties to remote buyer seeking economic loss damages as such would be judicial legislation
• noting the doubtful precedential value of pre-1986 cases which utilized exceptions to the vertical privity rule
• rejecting the name of. the car as an express warranty as to the components the car would use
• noting that \the professed neutrality of\ the UCC on the privity requirement \should not be viewed as an invitation to the courts to abolish the privity requirement ... [n]or should it be viewed as a prohibition against further development in that direction.\
• “Fraud is never presumed, but it may be inferred from the nature of the acts complained of.”
• “[N]one of those cases stand for the proposition that a trade name is a description creating an express warranty that the product is of a particular quality or that its component parts are of a particular quality.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).