Johnson v. John Deere Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
306 N.W.2d 231 (1981)
- Written by Jayme Weber, JD
Facts
Walter Johnson (plaintiff) was a mechanic for four years before becoming a farmer. Ten years into his farming career, Johnson bought a new tractor from the John Deere Company (John Deere) (defendant) through Nelson Implement, Inc. (Nelson) (defendant). During the contract negotiations, Johnson paid attention to what warranties he was getting. Johnson then signed John Deere’s purchase-order form. On the front page of the form contract, John Deere disclaimed all express and implied warranties other than a single warranty listed on the back of the form. The one warranty was a new-tractor warranty that provided for repair or replacement of defective parts. The warranty also stated that John Deere would not be liable for any incidental or consequential damages. Soon after Johnson began using the tractor, all sorts of things started to go wrong with it. Johnson had to keep taking the tractor back for repairs, losing the use of it for months at a time. Ultimately, Johnson sued John Deere and Nelson for breach of warranty. Although the trial court characterized the tractor as a “lemon,” the court still ruled in favor of the defendants because the contract had disclaimed all warranties other than the repair-and-replacement warranty. Johnson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Morgan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 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.
