Doug Connor, Inc. v. Proto-Grind, Inc.
Florida District Court of Appeal
761 So.2d 426 (2000)
- Written by Tom Syverson, JD
Facts
Proto-Grind, Inc. (defendant) sold a commercial grinding machine capable of grinding large pieces of wood into mulch. Proto-Grind’s brochure said the grinder was capable of grinding timber and stumps, but the brochure did not specify what types of wood the grinder could handle. Doug Connor (plaintiff) was interested in purchasing the grinder for use in his land-clearing business. Connor spoke with Proto-Grind’s president and purchased the grinder. The grinder did not work for Connor’s purposes, and Connor sued Proto-Grind for breach of express warranty. Connor claimed that he specifically told Proto-Grind’s president that Connor planned to use the grinder for land clearing in Florida, which required grinding palmetto trees and palm trees. Connor alleged that Proto-Grind’s president assured Connor that the grinder would be satisfactory for clearing land in Florida and would grind palmetto trees and palm trees. Connor presented evidence that the grinder could successfully mulch palm trees only half the time. The trial court held that the alleged representations from Proto-Grind were only puffery and did not constitute an express warranty. The court dismissed Connor’s express-warranty claim, and Connor appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peterson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.