Court Opinion

ID: 9742669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:17:42.24396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:34.705151
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). McKesson & Robbins, Inc., maintains that its additive was sold to I. D. O. Feed & Supply Corporation under the trade name of “Sow Lactation Premix.”
Sec. 121.15 (4), Stats., provides:
“In the case of a contract to sell or a sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name, there is no implied warranty as to its fitness for any particular purpose.”
Based on this statute, McKesson & Robbins, Inc., contends that I. D. O. is precluded from obtaining the benefit of an implied warranty because of the use of the trade name. This argument overlooks the important fact that sec. 121.15 (4), Stats., precludes an implied warranty only as to fitness for a particular purpose (sec. 121.15 (1)) but does not bar an implied warranty that goods are of a merchantable quality (sec. 121.15 (2)).
This distinction is recognized in 1 Williston, Sales (rev. ed.), p. 616, sec. 236a:
“Though the buyer by selecting goods sold under a patent or trade name cannot have an implied warranty that they are fit for his special purpose he may nevertheless rely on the seller for furnishing goods that are properly manufactured and are fit for the general purpose for which they are manufactured. In such a case the statement of the English court is sound: ‘The implied condition [i.e. warranty] that the goods are of merchantable quality applies to all goods bought from a seller who deals in goods of that description, whether they are sold under a patent or trade name or otherwise.’ The American authorities under the Sales Act support the statement.”
See also Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (1960), 32 N. J. 358, 161 Atl. (2d) 69.
*273bWhether the name “Sow Lactation Premix” qualified as a “patent or other trade name” is a factual question which has not been resolved in the instant case; even if we were able to make the determination that the additive was sold under a patent or trade name, there would still be an implied warranty that the additive was safe for the general purpose of a feed supplement. The effect of the statutory prohibition is that no warranty for any special purpose would be implied.
The motion for rehearing is denied, with $25 costs.