28:
204:
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the packing company to recover the amount paid by it for the destroyed catsup, together with interest. The court issued a judgment on a directed verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff challenged the judgement from the district court in Weber County for the
227:
The condemnation of the catsup by the government is not binding on defendant because there was no notice of libel, no proof there is a purity standard for catsup from the
Department of Agriculture, and no proof of any
236:
They were not doing business in Utah, the contract of purchase was made and performed in Utah. But the order of goods and the contract of sale was signed in Kansas City, where it became a binding obligation on both
192:
examined 271, and from 18 cans determined that there was mold filament in 67 per cent, condemning it unfit for consumption. A libel case was prosecuted by the US government against Kansas City
Wholesale Grocery in
542:
243:
The packing corporation knew the catsup was intended for shipment in interstate commerce, placed the goods in the channels of such commerce which falls into the operation of the
Federal Food and Drug Act
224:
The delivery was made on March 1, 1931,and no claims were made until
September 30, 1931, despite the contract containing a clause that all claims must be made within 10 days of receiving the goods
212:
That plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the action in the state court because they are a
Missouri corporation and never qualified in compliance with Utah law to do business in the state.
625:
535:
379:
106:
781:
118:
459:
440:
122:
549:
937:
729:
240:
Federal law prohibits shipment in interstate commerce of any article or food which is adulterated Food and Drug Act, § 2, Title 21, § 2, U.S.C.
372:
632:
885:
340:
307:
218:
That the transaction did not constitute a shipment in interstate commerce, therefore the operation does not fall within the
Federal
73:
1031:
910:
365:
1036:
840:
514:
507:
419:
722:
556:
205:
defendant to recover the purchase price of catsup for breach of an implied warranty of fitness under the sales contract.
521:
618:
581:
433:
215:
The contract was void since it constituted doing business within the state by a nonconforming foreign corporation.
656:
736:
597:
563:
349:
262:
The court held that a provision limiting time for complaints could not be applied to defects in a shipment of
684:
1041:
189:
774:
253:
The limits for the time for making a claim applies to defects are patent, but not defects that are latent
985:
715:
478:
388:
528:
930:
451:
412:
274:. The transaction was shipped in interstate commerce, therefore was subject to Food and Drug Act.
250:
on the part of the seller that the food product would be fit for the purpose for which it was sold.
767:
670:
643:
570:
267:
869:
1046:
847:
678:
198:
161:
489:
403:
180:
On August 4, 1930, and in March, 1931 the Weber
Packing Corporation delivered 303 cases of
8:
976:
803:
666:
903:
878:
788:
604:
266:
that could only be discerned through microscopic analysis. This case was cited in the
38:
1005:
996:
921:
799:
271:
219:
185:
944:
813:
758:
708:
695:
247:
951:
611:
590:
966:
831:
820:
651:
169:
114:
110:
1025:
699:
357:
157:
469:
543:
Arizona
Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.
194:
497:
493:
165:
263:
626:
Atlantic Marine
Construction Co. v. United States District Court
536:
In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation
181:
49:
Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corporation
27:
77:
197:
leading to the 271 cases of catsup being destroyed by the
93:
Appeal from District Court, Second District, Weber County
427:
Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.
334:
Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.
304:
Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.
153:
Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.
21:
Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.
292:
Contract Law: Selected Source Materials, 2009 Edition.
336:, 93 Utah 414, 73 P.2d 1272 (1937) is available from:
270:
as an example of the application of the principle of
782:Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America
460:Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States
441:Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc
1023:
938:Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. United States
550:Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology
730:G. L. Christian and Associates v. United States
387:
294:West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN: 2009, p. 41
373:
633:Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
188:. In September 1931, an inspector from the
886:Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly
380:
366:
290:Burton, S.J. & Eisenberg, M.A., eds.
26:
911:SCO Group, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
420:Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel & Casino
841:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
515:Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.
184:to Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co at
1024:
190:Federal Food & Drug Administration
723:Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.
557:Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc.
361:
13:
522:Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
160:(1937), was a case decided by the
14:
1058:
326:
208:Defendant argues several points:
657:Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent
619:King v. Trustees of Boston Univ.
434:Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green
1032:United States contract case law
1037:1937 in United States case law
737:Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton
598:Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon
564:Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc.
313:
297:
284:
1:
685:MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
277:
7:
775:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.
257:
164:where the court modified a
58:November 17, 1937
10:
1063:
986:Drennan v. Star Paving Co.
806:(unwritten & informal)
716:Seixas and Seixas v. Woods
479:Ellefson v. Megadeth, Inc.
389:United States contract law
995:
975:
965:
920:
895:
868:
861:
830:
798:
757:
751:Defense against formation
750:
694:
665:
642:
580:
529:ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg
488:
468:
450:
402:
395:
141:
133:
128:
102:
97:
89:
84:
69:
54:
44:
34:
25:
20:
931:United States v. Spearin
452:Implied-in-fact contract
413:Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.
175:
768:Morrison v. Amway Corp.
644:Substantial performance
571:Feldman v. Google, Inc.
268:Uniform Commercial Code
848:Buchwald v. Paramount
679:De Cicco v. Schweizer
199:United States marshal
162:Supreme Court of Utah
404:Offer and acceptance
308:73 P.2d 1272
1042:Utah state case law
977:Promissory estoppel
862:Cancelling Contract
904:Stoddard v. Martin
879:Sherwood v. Walker
789:McMichael v. Price
605:Kirksey v. Kirksey
508:Specht v. Netscape
396:Contract formation
232:Plaintiff argues:
107:William H. Folland
39:Utah Supreme Court
1019:
1018:
1015:
1014:
1006:Britton v. Turner
997:Unjust enrichment
961:
960:
922:Misrepresentation
857:
856:
800:Statute of frauds
746:
745:
272:unconscionability
220:Food and Drug Act
186:North Ogden, Utah
149:
148:
1054:
973:
972:
945:Laidlaw v. Organ
866:
865:
814:Buffaloe v. Hart
802:(written) &
759:Illusory promise
755:
754:
709:Hawkins v. McGee
696:Implied warranty
400:
399:
382:
375:
368:
359:
358:
354:
348:
345:
339:
320:
317:
311:
301:
295:
288:
248:implied warranty
119:Martin M. Larson
98:Court membership
65:
63:
30:
18:
17:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1011:
991:
957:
952:Smith v. Bolles
916:
891:
853:
826:
794:
742:
690:
661:
638:
612:Angel v. Murray
591:Hamer v. Sidway
576:
484:
464:
446:
391:
386:
352:
346:
343:
337:
329:
324:
323:
318:
314:
306:, 93 Utah 414,
302:
298:
289:
285:
280:
260:
178:
123:David W. Moffat
61:
59:
12:
11:
5:
1060:
1050:
1049:
1044:
1039:
1034:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1010:
1009:
1001:
999:
993:
992:
990:
989:
981:
979:
970:
967:Quasi-contract
963:
962:
959:
958:
956:
955:
948:
941:
934:
926:
924:
918:
917:
915:
914:
907:
899:
897:
893:
892:
890:
889:
882:
874:
872:
863:
859:
858:
855:
854:
852:
851:
844:
836:
834:
832:Unconscionable
828:
827:
825:
824:
821:Foman v. Davis
817:
809:
807:
804:Parol evidence
796:
795:
793:
792:
785:
778:
771:
763:
761:
752:
748:
747:
744:
743:
741:
740:
733:
726:
719:
712:
704:
702:
692:
691:
689:
688:
681:
675:
673:
663:
662:
660:
659:
654:
652:Lucy v. Zehmer
648:
646:
640:
639:
637:
636:
629:
622:
615:
608:
601:
594:
586:
584:
578:
577:
575:
574:
567:
560:
553:
546:
539:
532:
525:
518:
511:
503:
501:
486:
485:
483:
482:
474:
472:
466:
465:
463:
462:
456:
454:
448:
447:
445:
444:
437:
430:
423:
416:
408:
406:
397:
393:
392:
385:
384:
377:
370:
362:
356:
355:
328:
327:External links
325:
322:
321:
312:
296:
282:
281:
279:
276:
259:
256:
255:
254:
251:
244:
241:
238:
230:
229:
225:
222:
216:
213:
177:
174:
170:unconscionable
147:
146:
143:
139:
138:
135:
131:
130:
126:
125:
115:James H. Wolfe
111:Ephraim Hanson
104:
103:Judges sitting
100:
99:
95:
94:
91:
87:
86:
82:
81:
71:
67:
66:
56:
52:
51:
46:
45:Full case name
42:
41:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1059:
1048:
1045:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1035:
1033:
1030:
1029:
1027:
1008:
1007:
1003:
1002:
1000:
998:
994:
988:
987:
983:
982:
980:
978:
974:
971:
968:
964:
954:
953:
949:
947:
946:
942:
940:
939:
935:
933:
932:
928:
927:
925:
923:
919:
913:
912:
908:
906:
905:
901:
900:
898:
894:
888:
887:
883:
881:
880:
876:
875:
873:
871:
867:
864:
860:
850:
849:
845:
843:
842:
838:
837:
835:
833:
829:
823:
822:
818:
816:
815:
811:
810:
808:
805:
801:
797:
791:
790:
786:
784:
783:
779:
777:
776:
772:
770:
769:
765:
764:
762:
760:
756:
753:
749:
739:
738:
734:
732:
731:
727:
725:
724:
720:
718:
717:
713:
711:
710:
706:
705:
703:
701:
700:caveat emptor
697:
693:
687:
686:
682:
680:
677:
676:
674:
672:
668:
664:
658:
655:
653:
650:
649:
647:
645:
641:
635:
634:
630:
628:
627:
623:
621:
620:
616:
614:
613:
609:
607:
606:
602:
600:
599:
595:
593:
592:
588:
587:
585:
583:
582:Consideration
579:
573:
572:
568:
566:
565:
561:
559:
558:
554:
552:
551:
547:
545:
544:
540:
538:
537:
533:
531:
530:
526:
524:
523:
519:
517:
516:
512:
510:
509:
505:
504:
502:
499:
495:
491:
487:
481:
480:
476:
475:
473:
471:
467:
461:
458:
457:
455:
453:
449:
443:
442:
438:
436:
435:
431:
429:
428:
424:
422:
421:
417:
415:
414:
410:
409:
407:
405:
401:
398:
394:
390:
383:
378:
376:
371:
369:
364:
363:
360:
351:
342:
341:CourtListener
335:
331:
330:
319:Burton, p. 41
316:
309:
305:
300:
293:
287:
283:
275:
273:
269:
265:
252:
249:
245:
242:
239:
235:
234:
233:
226:
223:
221:
217:
214:
211:
210:
209:
206:
202:
200:
196:
191:
187:
183:
173:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
154:
144:
140:
136:
132:
129:Case opinions
127:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
105:
101:
96:
92:
90:Prior actions
88:
83:
79:
75:
72:
68:
57:
53:
50:
47:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
1047:1937 in Utah
1004:
984:
950:
943:
936:
929:
909:
902:
884:
877:
846:
839:
819:
812:
787:
780:
773:
766:
735:
728:
721:
714:
707:
683:
631:
624:
617:
610:
603:
596:
589:
569:
562:
555:
548:
541:
534:
527:
520:
513:
506:
477:
470:Mailbox rule
439:
432:
426:
425:
418:
411:
333:
315:
310: (1937).
303:
299:
291:
286:
261:
246:There is an
231:
207:
203:
201:and a fine.
179:
168:to avoid an
152:
151:
150:
85:Case history
48:
15:
671:3rd parties
195:Kansas City
158:93 Utah 414
134:Decision by
74:93 Utah 414
1026:Categories
969:obligation
896:Illegality
500:agreements
498:Browsewrap
490:Shrinkwrap
278:References
62:1937-11-17
494:Clickwrap
228:violation
70:Citations
350:Casetext
332:Text of
258:Decision
172:result.
166:contract
870:Mistake
667:Privity
264:ketchup
237:parties
142:Dissent
137:Folland
60: (
55:Decided
669:&
353:
347:
344:
338:
182:catsup
145:Moffat
176:Facts
76:; 73
35:Court
80:1272
78:P.2d
1028::
698:,
496:,
492:,
156:,
121:,
117:,
113:,
109:,
381:e
374:t
367:v
64:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
