Weinstat v. Dentsply International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[p]re-[U.C.C.] law governing express warranties required the purchaser to prove reliance on specific promises made by the seller” but that the UCC does not; under comment 3, there is a “presumption that the seller’s affirmations go to the basis of the bargain”
• noting that “[p]re-[UCC] law governing express warranties required the purchaser to prove reliance on specific promises made by the seller” but that the UCC does not; under comment 3, there is a “presumption that the seller’s affirma tions go to the basis of the bargain”
• noting, however, that the California Supreme Court has declined to resolve the issue
• stating that, “to prevail on a breach of express warranty claim, the plaintiff must prove (1) the seller’s statements constitute an affirmation of fact or promise or a description of the goods; (2) the statement was part of the basis of the bargain; and (3
• “All Natural & Organic” cosmetic products
• \All Natural & Organic\ cosmetic products

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).