Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Handy v. Holland Furnace Co.
Citations: 11 Wis. 2d 151; 11 Wis. 151; 105 N.W.2d 299; 1960 Wisc. LEXIS 445
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court; October 4, 1960; Wisconsin; State Supreme Court
In the case of Handy and wife v. Holland Furnace Company, the plaintiffs allege that they purchased a thermostatic fan system from the defendant based on recommendations from the defendant's agents, who assured them of its suitability for their furnace. Despite multiple requests for repair due to improper functioning, a fire occurred in the plaintiffs' home, which they claim was caused by a defective fan control. The plaintiffs seek $3,500 in damages, asserting a cause of action based on implied warranty as defined in Section 121.15 (1) of the Wisconsin Statutes, which states that when a buyer makes known the purpose of goods and relies on the seller's skill, there is an implied warranty of fitness for that purpose. The court determined that, despite the complaint's lack of precision, it sufficiently informs the defendant of the claims against it, thus allowing the case to proceed. The court referenced previous case law to support the notion that implied warranties apply when the goods are intended for a specific purpose known to both parties, highlighting that the thermostatic fan system was indeed a complex device requiring expert knowledge for evaluation. The court concluded that the defendant's recommendation and installation of the fan system carried an implied warranty, which the plaintiffs relied upon. The defendant was notified that the system was malfunctioning, which allegedly led to a fire caused by a defective thermostatic fan control. Although the complaint’s assertion of a defect is somewhat vague, it sufficiently informs the defendant of the claims it must address. The defendant argues that the complaint is flawed because it does not specify that an agent or employee installed the system, referencing a precedent case, Philipsky v. Scheflow, Monahan, where the court found a complaint lacking in stating a cause of action against a partnership due to insufficient allegations regarding the employment relationship. However, the current case does not parallel that example. Additionally, the defendant improperly included a sales contract in its brief, which is not part of the record for the demurrer. The court has reversed the order and remanded the case with instructions to overrule the demurrer.