Legal Opinion

Arctic Engineering Corp. v. Harrison

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 7, 1956PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.

Sec. 121.69 (2), Stats., lays down the remedies available to a buyer in case of breach of warranty, and then provides that:

“When the buyer has claimed and been granted a remedy in any one of these ways, no other remedy can thereafter be granted.”

Apparently the trial judge considered that, since defendant’s counterclaim had been dismissed, he had been granted a remedy and was entitled to no more. Manifestly, defendant was not granted a remedy by the dismissal of his counterclaim.

Plaintiff urges that we consider the case as though the defendant had at the trial abandoned his claim for…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Marsh Wood Products Co. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Park v. Richardson & Boynton Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Ace Engineering Co. v. West Bend Malting Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Wood v. HeyerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. BornWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. MacK Trucks, Inc. v. SundeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Paulson v. Olson Implement Co., Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Kennedy-Ingalls Corp. v. MeissnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API