History
  • No items yet
midpage
Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation v. Bernstein
181 So. 2d 641
| Fla. | 1966
|
Check Treatment
181 So. 2d 641 (1966)

LILY-TULIP CUP CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Petitioner,
v.
Roberta L. BERNSTEIN and Akiba Bernstein, her husband, Respondents.

No. 34682.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January 12, 1966.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for petitioner.

Thomas J. Gaine, Miami, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

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.

*642 THORNAL, C.J., and THOMAS, O'CONNELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS and CALDWELL, JJ., dissent.

DREW, J., heard argument but did not participate in decision.

Case Details

Case Name: Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation v. Bernstein
Court Name: Supreme Court of Florida
Date Published: Jan 12, 1966
Citation: 181 So. 2d 641
Docket Number: 34682
Court Abbreviation: Fla.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.