Arctic Engineering Corp. v. Harrison
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Marsh Wood Products Co. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Park v. Richardson & Boynton Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Ace Engineering Co. v. West Bend Malting Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
- Wood v. HeyerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
- Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. BornWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- MacK Trucks, Inc. v. SundeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Paulson v. Olson Implement Co., Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
- Kennedy-Ingalls Corp. v. MeissnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960