. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.


Breach of implied warranty of fitness - Plaintiffs allege that defendant paint manufacturer recommended paint product was fit for use on their cedar-sided house - Alleged blistering and peeling of paint - Improper preparation before painting was held to be cause of problems.

Suffolk County

The plaintiff homeowners brought this action for breach of the implied warranty of fitness. The plaintiffs argued that because of weather and atmospheric conditions, the defendant’s paint product should not be applied to ceder siding on homes in eastern Long Island where the plaintiffs’ house is located. The defendant argued that the painter had not properly prepared the cedarsiding and that it was this lack of preparation which resulted in the problems identified by the plaintiff.

The evidence revealed that in ________, the plaintiffs decided to have the outside of their cedarsided home in Peconic painted. Previously, they had stained the exterior, but were looking for a change and had found a picture of a color of paint they liked in a magazine. They showed an employee of their local paint store the color they had selected.

The employee recommended that they use paint in the desired color manufactured by the defendant Pratt & Lambert Paint Corp.

While the plaintiffs were in the paint store, the paint employee telephoned the defendant’s ________ number. The plaintiff later testified that a representative of the defendant told the store employee that their paint could be used on cedarsiding if the siding was properly prepared.

The plaintiffs engaged a relative to paint the house. Several days later, the plaintiffs alleged that sections of the painted areas began to blister and peel. A representative of the defendant paint store visited the house on two occasions to examine the problems and offer the plaintiffs remedies. The plaintiffs alleged that in spite of these remedies, the paint continued to blister and peel.

The painter testified that he had prepared the siding using Clorox bleach. The defendant argued and demonstrated that the label on the paint can recommended using a strong grease cutting detergent, not bleach. The plaintiffs’ expert engineer opined that the paint was inappropriate for cedarsided homes in eastern Long Island. The defendant’s expert chemist opined that painters had used the defendant’s paint for years on cedarsided homes in eastern Long Island without problem.

The plaintiffs had originally demanded $________. After deliberating for twenty minutes, the jury returned a defendant’s verdict.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.

Your cart is empty
Let Our expert Researchers Do The Searching For You! Pro Search Service

Related Searches