Lily-Tulip Cup Corp. v. Bernstein
| Decision Date | 12 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 34682,LILY-TULIP,34682 |
| Citation | 181 So.2d 641 |
| Parties | CUP CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Petitioner, v. Roberta L. BERNSTEIN and Akiba Bernstein, her husband, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for petitioner.
Thomas J. Gaine, Miami, for respondents.
The case sub judice comes to this Court on a petition for certiorari based on a question certified to be of great public interest by the Court of Appeal, Third District. We must decide whether privity of contract is required to support an action by a consumer against a manufacturer for breach of implied warranty of a product that is neither a dangerous instrumentality nor a foodstuff.
In the decision under review the District Court held that privity is not an essential element of the cause of action. Bernstein v. Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 362.
We have carefully reviewed the opinion submitted to us. It is in accord with the law of this jurisdiction. We, therefore, approve the opinion of the District Court in all respects. The writ is discharged.
It is so ordered.
DREW, J., heard argument but did not participate in decision.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Inc.
...warranty suit by a consumer against a manufacturer.' On certiorari, this opinion was approved by this Court. Lily-Tulip Cup Corp. v. Berstein, 181 So.2d 641 (Fla.1966). We made further inroads into the elimination of privity when the product involved was dangerous or an inherently dangerous......
-
Barfield v. U.S. Rubber Co.
...doubt on the classification of a breach of such a warranty as Ex contractu. See Prosser, Torts, § 83 (2d ed. 1955); Lily-Tulip Cup Corp. v. Bernstein, Fla.1966, 181 So.2d 641; Manheim v. Ford Motor Co., Fla.1967, 201 So.2d 440.' While this caveat of our supreme court is not essential to its......
-
Autrey v. Chemtrust Industries Corporation
...of privity in breach of warranty actions. In Bernstein v. Lily-Tulip Cup Corp., 177 So.2d 362 (3d Dist.Fla.App. 1965), affirmed 181 So.2d 641 (Fla. Supr.1966), a Florida court held that there was no requirement of privity between a consumer and remote manufacturer where breach of warranty p......
-
Cedars of Lebanon Hosp. Corp. v. European X-Ray Distributors of America, Inc.
...suit by a consumer against a manufacturer." Bernstein v. Lily-Tulip Cup Corp., 177 So.2d 362, 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), aff'd, 181 So.2d 641 (Fla.1966). With that statement, it appeared that the doctrine of privity was dead in Florida, at least with regard to suits to recover for personal inj......
-
The magic of privity in express product warranty claims: a plaintiff's perspective.
...receded from the privity requirement with the announcement in Bernstein v. LilyTulip Cup Corp., 177 So.2d 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), aff'd, 181 So.2d 641 (Fla.1966), that "privity no longer obtains in an implied warranty suit by a consumer against a manufacturer." (8) The Cedars court noted th......