Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.
161 A.2d 69 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
Facts
Claus H. Henningsen purchased a new Plymouth automobile, manufactured by Chrysler Corporation, from Bloomfield Motors, Inc. The car was intended as a Mother's Day gift for his wife, Helen Henningsen. The purchase contract, a standardized form, contained fine print on the reverse side that disclaimed all warranties, express or implied, except for a limited warranty to replace defective parts within 90 days or 4,000 miles. Mr. Henningsen did not read this fine print, and it was not called to his attention. Ten days after delivery, while Helen Henningsen was driving the car at 20-22 miles per hour, she heard a loud noise, the steering wheel spun, and the car veered sharply, crashing into a highway sign and brick wall, resulting in her injuries and the car being a total loss. An inspector opined the accident was due to a mechanical defect or failure.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs Helen and Claus Henningsen instituted suit against both Chrysler Corporation and Bloomfield Motors, Inc., alleging breach of express and implied warranties and negligence. At trial, the negligence counts were dismissed, and the case was submitted to the jury solely on implied warranty of merchantability. Verdicts were returned against both defendants and in favor of the plaintiffs. Defendants appealed, and plaintiffs cross-appealed from the dismissal of their negligence claim. This court certified the matter prior to consideration in the Appellate Division.
Issue
1. Does an implied warranty of merchantability extend from an automobile manufacturer to the ultimate purchaser, despite a lack of direct contractual privity? 2. Is a manufacturer's standardized disclaimer of implied warranties and limitation of liability for personal injuries valid and enforceable against the ultimate consumer?
Holding
1. Yes, an implied warranty of merchantability extends from the manufacturer to the ultimate purchaser. 2. No, the manufacturer's standardized disclaimer of implied warranties and limitation of liability for personal injuries is void as against public policy.
Rule
An implied warranty of merchantability accompanies the sale of a new automobile from the manufacturer to the ultimate purchaser, regardless of privity of contract, because modern marketing practices and the dangerous nature of defective automobiles demand consumer protection. Disclaimers of implied warranties and limitations of liability for personal injuries in standardized contracts for essential goods, like automobiles, are void as against public policy when there is gross inequality of bargaining power between the manufacturer and the consumer, and the consumer has no real freedom of choice to negotiate better terms. Such clauses are not considered to be 'fairly procured' and cannot override the public interest in safety and consumer rights.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.