Washington Environmental Council v. Sturdevant

How courts have described this case

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

• observing, in deciding to recognize exception to privity rule involving an express warranty, that the most recent Kentucky Supreme Court decision not to find an exception involved an implied warranty
• “Under Kentucky law, ‘[r]eliance is an element of a cause of action for express warranty . . . .’” (citations omitted)
• “Under Kentucky law, unjust enrichment ‘has no application in a situation where there is an explicit contract which has been performed.””
• “Case law suggests that Plaintiffs may allege both a breach of warranty claim and an unjust enrichment claim in their complaint.”
• “Whether Unilever’s identification of the product as having ‘smoothing’ effects is actually an affirmation of fact or promise is a fact question that cannot be decided on this motion to dismiss.”
• “The Court anticipates that Kentucky state courts would hold that an express warranty action can be maintained in cases such as this, where Unilever’s alleged written, express warranties were clearly intended for the product’s consumers.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).