Legal Opinion

Rogiers v. Gilchrist Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided December 28, 1942PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtQua, J.

"Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it appears that the buyer relies upon the seller’s skill and judgment, . . . there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose.” G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 106, § 17 (1). (Sales Act, § 15.)

*545In this action.for breach of an implied warranty of fitness in the sale of a dress by the defendant to the plaintiff at the defendant’s store on May 26, 1939, there was evidence tending to show the following: The salesgirl at the store “offered to…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Johnson v. KanavosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
  2. Bianchi v. Denholm & McKay Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  3. Idzykowski v. Jordan Marsh Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
  4. Nashua River Paper Co. v. LindsayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
  5. Jamrog v. H. L. Handy Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Payne v. R. H. White Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  2. Ringstad v. I. Magnin & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Reed v. BungerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1963
  4. Graham v. Jordan Marsh Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  5. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. City of MaldenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API