Meyer v. Packard Cleveland Motor Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
WANAMAKER, J.:
1. Where one is engaged in the manufacture and sale of motor trucks, and the rebuilding of its used trucks, newspaper ads or circulars touching rebuilt trucks, authorized and published by such motor company to the general trade, are competent evidence in behalf of the purchaser of any such truck, who knows of such ad and relies upon the same, unless it appears from the special contract signed by the parties touhcing such sale, that such special contract withdrew or altered the representations made in such general ad.
2. The language of a written order or contract of sale,. —…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
- Eckstein v. CumminsOhio Court of Appeals · 1974
- Gaffney v. Unit Crane and Shovel Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 1955
- Johnson v. Capital City Ford CompanyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1955
- Hobart Manufacturing Co. v. RodziewiczSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.