See, for example, Chamberlain v. Bob Matick Chevrolet, Inc., 4 Conn. Cir. 685, 239 A.2d 42 (Cir.Ct. 1967); Varkell v. United States, 334 F.2d 653, 167 Ct. Cl. 522 (Ct.Cl. 1964); Mulder v. Casho, 61 Cal.2d 633, 39 Cal. Rptr. 705, 394 P.2d 545 (Sup.Ct. 1964); Hembree v. Southard, 339 P.2d 771 (Okla.Sup.Ct. 1959); Armour v. Haskins, 275 S.W.2d 580 (Ky.Ct.App. 1955); Byrd v. Harry Sommers, Inc., 87 Ga. App. 663, 75 S.E.2d 287 (Ct.App. 1953); Gaidry Motors, Inc. v. Brannon, 268 S.W.2d 627 (Ky.Ct.App. 1953); and cf. Benton v. Sloss, 38 Cal.2d 399, 240 P.2d 575 (Sup.Ct. 1952), referring to California statutory requirements that a used car dealer inspect brakes before resale. Defendant Hall Fuhs, Inc. alleges that the cause of the accident was a design defect, and thus is the responsibility of the manufacturer.
See R.E. Brooks Co. v. Storr, 111 N.J.L. 316 (E. A. 1933); St. George v. Grisafe, 38 N.J. Super. 297 (App.Div. 1955); Crown Cork Seal Co., Inc. v. Hires Bottling Co. of Chicago, 254 F. Supp. 424 (N.D. Ill. 1966); First National Bank of Elgin v. Husted, 57 Ill.App.2d 227, 205 N.E.2d 680 (App.Ct. 1965); and numerous cases cited in Annotation, "Construction and effect of affirmative provision in contract of sale by which purchaser agrees to take article `as is,' in the condition in which it is, or equivalent term," 24 A.L.R.3d 465 (1969). But see: Byrd v. Harry Sommers, Inc., 87 Ga. App. 663, 75 S.E.2d 287 (Ct.App. 1953) and Varkell v. United States, 167 Ct. Cl. 522, 334 F.2d 653 (1964). Code Comment 3, ยง 2-314 recognizes that a distinction must be drawn when the sale involves used goods, saying: "A contract for the sale of second-hand goods, however, involves only such obligation as is appropriate to such goods for that is their contract description."