Lane v. C. A. Swanson & Sons
278 P.2d 723, 1955 Cal. App. LEXIS 1880, 130 Cal.App.2d 210 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer's specific affirmation of fact about a product, such as a label stating 'Boned Chicken' coupled with an advertisement proclaiming 'No bones,' creates an express warranty that the product will conform to that absolute description.
Facts:
- Plaintiff purchased a can of 'Boned Chicken' manufactured by defendant C. A. Swanson and Sons and sold by defendant Foods Company.
- The label on the can prominently featured the words 'Boned Chicken'.
- Prior to the purchase, Plaintiff had seen newspaper advertisements for the product which described Swanson 'Boned Chicken' as containing 'No bones.'
- The same advertisements described other products differently, such as 'Boned Turkey' being 'carefully boned,' suggesting a distinction in the level of processing.
- While eating the chicken, Plaintiff swallowed a small piece of bone that was in the product.
- The bone became lodged in Plaintiff's throat, causing severe personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C. A. Swanson and Sons and Foods Company in a trial court for breach of warranty.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the defendants.
- The trial court found that there was no express warranty that the chicken was free from bones and no breach of the implied warranty that it was fit for human consumption.
- Plaintiff (appellant) appealed the judgment to the intermediate court of appeal.
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 product label stating 'Boned Chicken,' combined with advertisements proclaiming 'No bones,' create an express warranty that the product is completely free of all bone fragments?
Opinions:
Majority - Shinn, P. J.
Yes. A product label stating 'Boned Chicken,' combined with advertisements proclaiming 'No bones,' creates an express warranty that the product is completely free of all bone fragments. The court reasoned that any affirmation of fact or promise by a seller which tends to induce a buyer to purchase the goods constitutes an express warranty. Representations made in advertisements can be considered part of the contract of sale. While the term 'Boned Chicken' alone might be ambiguous, the defendants' explicit advertisement stating 'No bones' removed any doubt about the quality being warranted. The court interpreted this language from the perspective of a reasonable consumer, concluding that 'No bones' means a complete absence of bones, not merely that major bones have been removed. The court rejected the defendants' argument that it is 'humanly impossible' to remove all bone fragments, stating that business difficulties do not abrogate established principles of warranty law.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that specific advertising claims are not mere puffery but can create binding express warranties. It establishes that courts will interpret such claims from the viewpoint of a reasonable consumer, holding manufacturers to a literal interpretation of their words, such as 'No bones.' The decision places a significant burden on sellers to ensure their marketing language is scrupulously accurate, as broad, absolute claims can create liability even where the underlying product is otherwise fit for consumption. This precedent strengthens consumer protection by making it clear that a product must live up to all specific guarantees made to induce its sale.
