Ryan v. Progressive Grocery Stores, Inc.
255 N.Y. 388, 74 A.L.R. 339, 175 N.E. 105 (1931)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An implied warranty of merchantable quality applies to a retail dealer who sells a sealed, branded article of food containing a foreign substance, even if the buyer selected the specific brand and did not rely on the seller's skill or judgment for selection.
Facts:
- Plaintiff's wife, acting as his agent, bought a loaf of bread at the defendant Progressive Grocery Stores' establishment.
- Plaintiff's wife specifically asked the salesman for a loaf of "Ward's bread."
- The salesman provided the requested loaf, which was wrapped in a sealed package as it had come from the Ward Baking Company.
- The purchased loaf of bread contained a hidden pin.
- The plaintiff was injured in the mouth by the hidden pin when consuming the bread.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant, Progressive Grocery Stores, for breach of warranty.
- A trial court entered a judgment for damages in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant appealed the trial court's judgment.
- The case then reached the New York Court of Appeals on appeal for review of the judgment.
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 an implied warranty of merchantable quality apply to a retail grocer who sells a sealed, branded loaf of bread containing a foreign object, even when the buyer specifically requested that brand and did not rely on the seller's skill or judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardozo, Ch. J.
Yes, an implied warranty of merchantable quality applies to a retail grocer under these circumstances. The Court first addressed the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (Pers. Prop. Law, § 96, subd. 1), concluding it did not apply because the buyer's wife specifically requested a branded product ('Ward's bread') and relied on her own choice, not the seller's skill or judgment. However, the Court affirmed the judgment based on the implied warranty of merchantable quality (Pers. Prop. Law, § 96, subd. 2). The Sales Law changed the common law, extending this warranty to dealers, not just manufacturers or growers, for goods 'bought by description' from a seller who 'deals in goods of that description.' A loaf of bread with a pin in it is not of merchantable quality because it is not reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are sold. The defect was latent, and inspection was impossible. The Court held that when goods are purchased by description, and are not merchantable, the seller is liable, even if the buyer selected the brand. The Court also held that damages are not limited to the price of the bread, as the dealer had notice from the nature of the transaction that the bread was to be eaten, and thus knew that damage could be greater than the price. The plaintiff's claim, though perhaps initially framed under a different warranty subdivision, could be upheld as the facts proved a breach of the warranty of merchantable quality.
Analysis:
This case significantly expanded the liability of retail merchants, particularly for food products, by clarifying that the implied warranty of merchantable quality applies to them even when selling branded, sealed goods. It shifts the burden of latent defects from the consumer to the dealer, who can then seek recourse from the manufacturer. The ruling also firmly established that personal injury sustained from unmerchantable food is a foreseeable special damage, recoverable under this warranty, setting an important precedent for consumer protection in food sales.
