Question: HENNINGSEN v. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS, INC., 161 A.2D 69 (N.J. 1960)

FACTS Chrysler Corporation manufactured a car with a defective steering mechanism. Claus Henningsen purchased the car from Bloomfield Motors, a Chrysler dealer, and gave the car to his wife, Helen. Helen Henningsen was injured when the steering mechanism failed with 468 miles on the odometer. She sued both Bloomfield Motors and Chrysler Corp. for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. DECISION Helen Henningsen clearly was not in privity with Chrysler Corp. because:

(1) the actual purchase was made by her husband, Claus, and

(2) he had purchased the car from Bloomfield Motors, a dealer, and not Chrysler Corp. directly.

Nonetheless, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that as a matter of public policy, the doctrine of privity ought not to be allowed to act as a bar to Helen Henningsen's recovery from Chrysler. The court stated: The limitations of privity in contracts for the sale of goods developed their place in the law when marketing conditions were simple, when maker and buyer frequently met face to face on an equal bargaining plane and when many of the products were relatively uncomplicated and conducive to inspection by a buyer competent to evaluate their quality.

With the advent of mass marketing, the manufacturer became remote from the purchaser, sales were accomplished through intermediaries and the demand for the product was created by advertising media. In such an economy it became obvious that the consumer was the person being cultivated. Manifestly, the connotation of "consumer" was broader than that of "buyer." He signified such a person who, in the reasonable contemplation of the parties to the sale, might be expected to use the product. The court thus concluded: "[W]here the commodities sold are such that if defectively manufactured they will be dangerous to life or limb, then society's interests can only be protected by eliminating the requirement of privity between the maker and his dealers and the reasonably expected ultimate consumer." Because Helen Henningsen was "a person who, in the reasonable contemplation of the parties to the warranty, might be expected to become a user of the automobile," she was protected by the warranty.