Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 19,800+ case briefs...

Keller v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc.

Colorado Supreme Court
819 P.2d 69 (1991)


Alfred and Martha Keller (plaintiffs) were dairy farmers who bought two Harvestore grain storage systems from A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. (Smith) (defendant). Prior to the Kellers’ purchase, Smith had engaged in a robust marketing campaign, which involved sending Smith distributors out with marketing materials. The Harvestores, unlike traditional grain silos, were designed to keep oxygen away from the stored grain. According to the marketing materials materials, without the presence of oxygen, the grain could be kept forever without spoilage. Potential buyers were also told that the Harvestores would make protein supplements for dairy cows unnecessary, or at least reduce the need for protein supplements. Based on what the Kellers saw in Smith’s marketing materials, the Kellers signed Smith’s purchase-order agreement to buy two Harvestores. The agreement stated that the purchase order was the final integration of the agreement between the parties. The agreement also stated that the marketing materials did not create any “guarantees” and that the Kellers were not relying on the marketing materials “as such.” The Kellers’ new Harvestores were installed, and the Kellers began using them to store feed for their cows. Soon thereafter, the cows began to suffer from a variety of ailments, and some cows even died. The Kellers sued Smith in federal court for several claims, including negligent misrepresentation. The Kellers argued that the marketing materials contained misrepresentations that unlawfully induced the Kellers to enter the contract. The jury ruled in favor of the Kellers, and Smith appealed. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified two state-law questions to the Colorado Supreme Court for review.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Kirshbaum, J.)

Dissent (Rovira, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 508,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 508,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 19,800 briefs, keyed to 985 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial