Legal Opinion
Burntisland Shipbuilding Co. v. Barde Steel Products Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided February 15, 1922No. 5PublishedCited by 9 opinions
At Law. Action by the Burntisland Shipbuilding Company, Limited, for the use of Raeburn & Yerel, Limited, hgainst the Barde Steel Products Corporation. On demurrer to second count of declaration.
1Opinion of the Court
MORRIS, District Judge.
To the second count of a declaration filed in an action at law brought by Burntisland Shipbuilding Company, Limited, for the use of Raeburn & Verel, Limited, against Barde Steel Products Corporation, the defendant has demurred. In this count a contract between the parties, made in the state of New York, is set out in hsec verba, pertinent portions of which are as follows:
“The quantity, quality, and description of steel is not warranted or guaranteed, and it is understood that the .same constitutes a part of the steel sold to us by the United States Shipping Board…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hanley v. DonoghueSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Fourth Nat. Bank of NY v. FrancklynSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- O'Dell v. Southern Ry. Co.District Court, W.D. South Carolina · 1917
3Cited by9 opinions
- Whitaker v. Cannon Mills Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1945
- American Elastics, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
- Alaska Pacific Salmon Co. v. Reynolds Metals Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- Rockwood & Co. v. Parrott & Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1933
- Sharples Separator Co. v. Domestic Electric Refrigerator Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1932
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.