Byrd v. Harry Sommers Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Turner v. International Harvester Company

    133 N.J. Super. 277 (Law Div. 1975)   Cited 36 times
    In Turner, a used car dealer was held liable in strict liability for the fatal injuries suffered when the cab of a used truck suddenly collapsed and fell on the buyer.

    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.

  2. Gindy Mfg. Corp. v. Cardinale Truck. Corp.

    111 N.J. Super. 383 (Law Div. 1970)   Cited 16 times
    In Gindy Manufacturing Corp. v. Cardinale Trucking Corp., 111 N.J. Super. 383, 268 A.2d 345 (1970), a seller under an installment conditional sales contract sued the purchaser for a deficiency after repossession of certain semi-trailers following the buyer's default under the contract.

    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."