Postell v. Boykin Tool & Supply Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The defendant contended that the statements used amounted to nothing more than an implied warranty. Where goods are sold in the manufacturer’s original sealed containers, and there is nothing to put the retailer on notice that they are not as represented to be, he is not liable on an implied warranty. Davis v. Williams, 58 Ga. App. 274 (198 S. E. 357). It is only in the absence of an express warranty that resort can be had to an implied warranty. Johnson v. Latimer, 71 Ga. 470; Malsby v. Young, 104 Ga. 205 (30 S. E. 854). Where the words used go no farther…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Pryor v. Ludden & Bates Southern Music HouseSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
- Malsby & Avery v. YoungSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Johnson v. J. S. &. W. H. LatimerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1884
- Davis v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
- Bel v. AdlerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kushner v. McLartyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
- Taratus v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1980
- Sensabaugh v. Morgan Bros. Farm Supply, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1960
- Smith v. TaratusCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
- Smith v. TaratusCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979