|
4804 REVIEW DENIED In an action for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for the buyer's particular purpose, direct dealings between the maker/seller of component parts and a plaintiff that created a device in which those component parts were used satisfied the requirement of privity, even though the component parts were not sold directly to plaintiff, but to a company plaintiff hired to manufacture the device, and even though the action was against a successor to the component parts supplier.CitationCARDINAL v TYCO (Defective Part) 169 CA4 116 [See: CA UCC 2725, 2607; Carrau v Marvin 93 CA4 281, T/AT 12/01; Rivas v Safety-Kleen 98 CA4 218, T/AT 6/02; US Roofing v Credit Alliance 228 CA3 1431; Arriaga v Citicapital 167 CA4 1527, T/AT 12/08]
|
|
