A purchaser has a remedy against a manufacturer because of damages suffered by reason of a failure of goods to comply with the manufacturer's representations as to the existence of qualities which they did not in fact possess, when the absence of such qualities were not readily discoverable, even though there was no privity of contract between the purchaser and the manufacturer.
Plaintiff bought a car from defendant dealer that was made by defendant manufacturer. Both defendants made representations that the windshield of the car was shatterproof. A small rock hit the windshield causing it to shatter and plaintiff lost his left eye. Plaintiff sued, and the trial court ordered judgment for both defendants.
Was the defendant dealer liable for the damage even though there were no warranties on the car?
The court affirmed the judgment for defendant dealer because there was a provision in the contract that stated defendant dealer had made no warranties concerning the car. However, defendant manufacturer had printed up materials that claimed that the windshield was shatterproof. The court reversed and ordered a new trial against defendant manufacturer.