Henningsen (P) bought a new car from Bloomfield Motors (D) for his wife. His wife was injured when the steering mechanism failed while she was driving it 10 days after it has been delivered. They both sued D and the manufacturer for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability imposed by the Uniform Sales Act. Ds contended that the warranty had been disclaimed due to a provision in fine print on the back of the purchase contract which limited liability to replacement of defective parts for the period of 90 days after delivery or 4,000 miles of driving, whichever was shorter. The clause was among an 8.5-point section of fine print on the back and was called to on the front of the form in six-point type just above the signature line. All the other language used on the front was in twelve-point type. The contract stated that “I have read the matter printed on the back hereof and agree to it as part of this order the same as if it were printed above my signature.” The form that was used was the uniform warranty of the entire automotive industry. P claimed that there was a gross inequality in bargaining position and thus the express agreement was invalid. D appealed a final judgment for P.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.