Bay Law Browns Bay

We strive to provide high quality legal services to every client and treat each client with the same courtesy, friendliness and openness. *219 O. A. Brecke and J. Robert Nygren, Minneapolis, for P. McA. Dougall. Thirty-five years later, we remain true to our original ideals. We continue to be a busy law firm that offers comprehensive legal advice in most areas of law and a network of specialized contacts you can rely on when needed. [4] Uniform Commercial Code Comment, 21A M.S.A. p.

338, states: «This section [§ 336.2316] is primarily intended to deal with common terms in sales contracts aimed at excluding `any warranty, express or implied`. It attempts to protect a buyer from the unexpected and unrelated language of the disclaimer by denying the effect of such language if it is inconsistent with the language of the express warranty, and by allowing the exclusion of implied warranties only by conspicuous language or other circumstances that protect the buyer from surprise. Belongs before KNUTSON, C. J., and NELSON, MURPHY, OTIS, and THEODORE B. KNUDSON, JJ. We work for individuals, trusts, large corporations, corporations, charities and registered corporations. [3] It appears that an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and an implied warranty of merchantability that a product is fit for the ordinary purpose for which it is intended to be used are largely synonymous or coextensive and do not pose a problem in this case. Note, 17 A.L.R.(3d) 1010, 1069, 1074; Note, 74 A.L.R.

343; Ryan v. Progressive Grocery Stores, Inc., 255 N.Y. 388, 392, 175 N.E. 105, 106, 74 A.L. R. 339, 341: «There are times *** when warranties coexist, in which case recovery may be based on either of the two.» Fitness for a particular purpose can only be treated in the same way as merchantability» (Williston, Sales, Vol. 1, § 235, and the cases cited therein). Although the dealer claimed that the alleged defects were minor and normally incidental to a new vehicle, its records nevertheless show that the boat was towed twice to the boat factory and that the boat was serviced twice in the plaintiff`s house on the lake in the summer of 1965. A «Warranty Replacement or Engine Request» from the dealer to the manufacturer lists the following information: *218 Johnson & Sands and Maurice Lizee, Minneapolis, for the complainant. Our principles are to ensure that this is achieved in a way that is appropriate to their situation.

This global policy is reflected in the support provided to the various companies and local organizations for which we provide services. Our clients include locals as well as individuals and businesses across Auckland, New Zealand and the world. [2] See Minnesota Code Comment, 21A M.S.A. at p. 273 et seq., with reference to the original provisions of the Unified Sales Act on Warranties and related provisions of the applicable Uniform Commercial Code. According to the applicant`s testimony, in the summer of 1965 he encountered great difficulties in operating the vessel. The boat proved to be completely unreliable, often did not start and stopped at difficult times and ran aground four times in the middle of the lake. When it was running, the engine power was rough. An electric lift designed to bring the water propulsion mechanism to life when the boat was moored sometimes froze in the middle of its operation.

The gas indicator was found to be defective. The plaintiff testified that in the summer of 1965 he had only managed to operate the boat for 23 hours, and that half of that time had been spent on trips to the defendant`s boat factory for repairs. The applicant was never able to operate the boat for more than 1 hour and a half at a time without any problems. In 2016, Craig Nelson, a partner at a municipal law firm, joined us. Craig brought his own unique commercial and forestry expertise and an interesting mix of local, national and international clients. The president of the defendant company testified that the company`s mechanics had worked on the boat and that it was a minor type of tune-up.