Legal Opinion · Dissent

Freeman v. Navarre

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1955No. 32888Published

1DissentSchwellenbach, J.

(dissenting)—The majority opinion indicates that Navarre was appellant’s agent for the purchase of the insulated pipe from Ric-Wil. Freeman awarded the contract to Navarre to furnish materials and install the heating system. In fact, in this action, he sued Navarre for *777breach of contract. I fail to find anything in the record which would make Navarre, Freeman’s agent.

The only question presented in this appeal is whether appellant, the ultimate user, can recover from respondent, the manufacturer, in the absence of a specific contract between the two.

This state has kept in step with those…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mazetti v. Armour & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Bock v. Truck & Tractor, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Cochran v. McDonaldWashington Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Wrenshall State Bank v. ShuttWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API