Milau Associates, Inc. v. North Avenue Development Corp.

368 N.E.2d 1247 (1977)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Milau Associates, Inc. v. North Avenue Development Corp.

Court of Appeals of New York
368 N.E.2d 1247 (1977)

  • Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD

Facts

Several textile companies (the companies) (plaintiffs) rented a warehouse built by Milau Associates, Inc. (Milau) (defendant). Higgins Fire Protection, Inc. (Higgins) (defendant), was the subcontractor that had designed and installed the sprinkler system in the building. Higgins’s subcontract outlined the materials that would be used, indicated the performance obligations for installing the sprinkler system, and warranted that the work would be of good quality and free from faults and defects. The companies suffered substantial water damage when a burst underground pipe caused the sprinkler system’s pipes to fracture. The companies sued Milau and Higgins for negligence and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, claiming that the sprinkler pipes tore along a notch created by a dull tool that Higgins had used to cut sections of the pipe. The trial court refused to allow the implied-warranty claim to go to the jury. The jury returned a verdict on the negligence claim in favor of Milau and Higgins. The companies appealed the trial court’s decision on the implied-warranty claim, arguing that the notch in the pipe was sufficient to show that the goods furnished under the hybrid sales-services contract were defective and that the defect had made the pipe unfit for the pipe’s intended purpose under Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-315. The appellate division found no evidence that the pipe was unfit for its intended purpose. The companies appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wachtler, 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 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership