Ford Motor Company v. Lemieux Lumber Company
1967 Tex. App. LEXIS 2372, 418 S.W.2d 909 (1967)
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer can be held liable for breach of express or implied warranty regarding a product's suitability for its intended purpose, even without direct contractual privity with the ultimate buyer, when the manufacturer makes representations about the product, including through advertising.
Facts:
- Plaintiff purchased a new Ford pick-up truck with four-wheel drive from N. A. Walker, an authorized Ford Motor Company dealer, in Cleveland, Texas.
- N. A. Walker obtained the truck directly from Ford Motor Company.
- N. A. Walker knew that Plaintiff intended to use the truck to operate in muddy, rough, wet terrain to haul fuel to its timber-cutting equipment.
- Ford Motor Company furnished N. A. Walker with brochures depicting its products crossing streams and climbing mountains, which N. A. Walker distributed.
- Jesse H. Williams, president of Plaintiff corporation, read one of these brochures and relied upon it before purchasing the truck.
- The truck immediately began experiencing problems, including the rear end stripping out and the universal joint bursting, despite compliance with proper use and maintenance requirements.
- The truck was returned to N. A. Walker three or four times for attempted repairs, but the problems were not resolved.
- Plaintiff suffered damages because the truck was not suitable for the purpose for which it was sold.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against N. A. Walker (a resident of Liberty County, Texas) and Ford Motor Company (a foreign corporation with an agent in Harris County, Texas) in a Texas trial court in Liberty County, alleging breach of implied and express warranties.
- Defendant Ford Motor Company filed a plea of privilege, seeking to transfer the case to Harris County, Texas.
- Plaintiff filed a controverting affidavit, asserting that venue was proper in Liberty County under subdivisions 4, 23, 27, and 29a of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.
- The trial court held a hearing and rendered judgment overruling Ford Motor Company's plea of privilege, finding venue was sustainable in Liberty County.
- Ford Motor Company appealed the trial court's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lack of direct contractual privity between a manufacturer and an ultimate purchaser preclude an action against the manufacturer for breach of express or implied warranty regarding a product's suitability for its intended purpose, especially when the manufacturer's advertising influenced the purchase?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephenson, Justice
No, a lack of direct contractual privity between a manufacturer and an ultimate purchaser does not preclude an action against the manufacturer for breach of express or implied warranty regarding a product's suitability for its intended purpose, especially when the manufacturer's advertising influenced the purchase. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding venue proper in Liberty County. The court explicitly held that privity is no longer required in Texas for actions based upon a breach of an express or implied warranty that a product is suitable for its purpose, citing United States Pipe & Foundry Co. v. City of Waco and McKisson v. Sales Affiliates, Inc. as precedent for allowing recovery directly against a manufacturer making representations without privity. Furthermore, the court concluded that a manufacturer should be held responsible for its advertising, regardless of the medium, and should be held responsible for economic or commercial losses when the product is not suitable for the use for which it is advertised, referencing Ford Motor Company v. Lonon for supporting discussion. Venue was sustainable because one defendant, N. A. Walker, resided in Liberty County (under Section 4 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.) and a cause of action was proven against Ford Motor Company.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens manufacturer liability in Texas by unequivocally abolishing the privity requirement for warranty claims, aligning with a growing national trend towards consumer protection. By holding manufacturers directly responsible for representations made through advertising, the ruling underscores the importance of truthful product claims and shifts risk from the consumer to the manufacturer. This precedent makes it easier for consumers to sue manufacturers directly for defective products, promoting accountability and potentially influencing product design and marketing strategies to ensure advertised capabilities match actual performance.
