Legal Opinion
Bernhard v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas
Decided October 17, 1941No. File No. 41360PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtMellitz, J.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of - biting upon a foreign substance contained in a can of corn purchased by her from the defendant. Recovery is .sought for breach of implied warranty of fitness for consumption as food and implied warranty of merchantable quality, under subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 1276e of the 1939 Supplement to the General Statutes.
The store owned by the defendant and in which the plaintiff purchased the corn in question is of the type 'known as a self-service store, wherein the customer is afforded an opportunity…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Ryan v. Progressive Grocery Stores, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Burkhardt v. Armour & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Weiner v. D. A. Schulte, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
- Rinaldi v. . Mohican Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Ward v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kelly v. Stop and Shop, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2007