Legal Opinion
Craig v. Pellet
Appellate Court of Illinois
Decided January 30, 1918No. Gen. No. 23,276PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. Cavekly, Judge, presiding.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice O’Connor
5. Sales, § 252*—when no implied warranty as to fitness for purpose prior to Uniform Sales Act. Prior to the Uniform Sales Act of 1915 [Callaghan’s 1916 St. Supp. ¶ 1021(4) et seq.J, where the purchaser of a specified appliance did not rely on the judgment or skill of the seller hut was as familiar with the appliance as the seller, there was no implied warranty by the seller that the appliance was reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was bought.
2Cited by3 opinions
- J. P. Seeburg Piano Co. v. LindnerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1921
- Lathrop-Paulson Co. v. PerksenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1923
- Lebow & Shell Corp. v. MedellaAppellate Court of Illinois · 1938