Case Law Summaries

Lee v. Andress

• Opinion Date: December 6, 2001
• Business Law
• E-Mail

CONTRACTS—A furniture store does not have to warn buyers that soft fabric may wrinkle.

A buyer purchased a sofa from a department store. About three months later, the buyer contacted the store with complaints that the sofa was sunken and wrinkled. The department store sent an independent contractor to examine the sofa and its conclusion was that there was no defect. A month later, the customer complained again and a different independent contractor was sent to make an evaluation. That inspector “found no defect and stated that there was normal wear and tear from customer usage.” A year later, the customer sued. At trial, the independent inspector testified that the sofa was designed with soft cushions and that there was nothing wrong with the piece in that it conformed with the intended design. The lower court concluded that the store had a duty to point out “or to put some disclaimer on it. Leather fabrics may wrinkle… .” It then rescinded the sale. Its belief was that there was nothing that could be fixed because “that’s the way [the sofa] was designed and you should have been warned of that.” The Appellate Division held that there was insufficient evidence to support the lower court’s conclusion that “the softness of the furniture required a disclaimer… .” The customer’s entire case rested upon her testimony that “the furniture was too soft and the leather wrinkled. The evidence was clearly insufficient to prove a defect… .”

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.