Legal Opinion
Herbstman v. Eastman Kodak Company
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided July 1, 1975PublishedCited by 52 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Schkeiber, J. Clifford
N. Herbstman, a member of the bar of this State who appeared pro se, filed a complaint in the Hunterdon County District Court in which he charged that the defendant Eastman-Kodak Company (“Kodak”) sold him a new Kodak Pocket Instamatic No. 40 camera through a retail dealer, and -that the defendant impliedly warranted the camera was merchantable and reasonably fit for the purposes for which it was to be used. In its answer the defendant denied the implied warranties and asserted that it had made an express warranty only to repair…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Seely v. White Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1932
- Hays Merchandise, Inc. v. DeweyWashington Supreme Court · 1970
- Rozmus v. THOMPSON'S LINCOLN-MERC. CO.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
- Courtesy Ford Sales, Inc. v. FarriorCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1974
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & MacHine CompanySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979
- Spring Motors Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
- In Re the Cadillac V8-6-4 Class ActionSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2004
- D'Ercole Sales, Inc. v. Fruehauf Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1985
- Ventura v. Ford Motor Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1981
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.