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

  1. Bielski v. SchulzeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Cutler Corp. v. LatshawSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  3. Ross v. Northrup, King & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
  4. O'BRIEN v. IsaacsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  5. 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

  1. Taterka v. Ford Motor Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Davison v. WilsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Resch v. Greenlee Bros. & Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1985
  4. City of Stoughton v. Thomasson Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2003
  5. WXIX, Inc. v. Scott Heating & Air Conditioning Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API