Goulding v. Skinner case brief summary

Goulding v. Skinner

 

-Machine cards weren’t good;  Goulding sues Skinner to recover damages for breach of warranty

-Prevailing rule of the 18^th Century  was that a sound price warrants a good commodity

            -Implied warranty of merchantability

-Court says that if you want a warranty then ask for one

-Court refuses to remake contracts through equitable interpretation

-Caveat Emptor:  let the buyer beware

-In McFarland v. Newman (1839), court rules that in the absence of an express warranty, the rule is caveat emptor (this rule gives finality to bargains)