Legal Opinion
Calumet Cheese Co. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided September 29, 1964PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.
Pfizer’s contentions may be grouped in four separate categories:
1. Disclaimer by Pfizer.
Pfizer in defense of the action brought by Calumet relies on a disclaimer printed on the back of eight invoices and seven order acknowledgments. In small print at the bottom of the face of the invoice appears the following :
“This transaction is subject to SELLER’S STANDARD CONDITIONS printed on the back hereof, notwithstanding any provision submitted by the BUYER.”
The conditions on the back that are material are:
“2. Seller makes no warranty of any kind, express or implied, except that the material sold…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Bielski v. SchulzeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Cutler Corp. v. LatshawSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Ross v. Northrup, King & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
- O'BRIEN v. IsaacsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Reliance Varnish Co. v. Mullins Lumber Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1948
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Taterka v. Ford Motor Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
- Davison v. WilsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
- Resch v. Greenlee Bros. & Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1985
- City of Stoughton v. Thomasson Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2003
- WXIX, Inc. v. Scott Heating & Air Conditioning Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1968