MAX P. ENGEL AND PAUL POLLACK, AS CO-PARTNERS D/B/A ENGEL & POLLACK, INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR USE AND BENEFIT OF WILLIAM H. COOPER AND BETTY COOPER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE LAWYERS CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Law partners sued a legal publishing company on behalf of themselves and their clients for damages allegedly caused by a defective legal reference book that contained incorrect statute of limitations information. The trial court dismissed the claims of the clients (the Coopers) for lack of standing, and this appeal affirms that dismissal.
The court affirmed the dismissal of the clients' claims, holding that the clients lacked standing to sue because they were not users of the product. The product's warranty of fitness extended only to those who actually used or relied upon the defective reference material.
“as it appears from the complaint that the plaintiff clients were not users of the product”
The court's basis for affirming dismissal—the clients lacked standing because they did not directly use the defective legal reference book
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAttorneys Engel and Pollack, acting as a law partnership, purchased American Jurisprudence legal books from the defendant publisher. The Desk Book inc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Implied Warranty Of Fitness cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs below from an order granting a motion of the defendant and dismissing the cause as to certain plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs Max P. Engel and Paul Pollack, comprising a law partnership, filed an action on behalf of themselves and for use and benefit of William H. Cooper and Betty Cooper, his wife, who were their clients. They alleged that a set of American Jurisprudence purchased by them from the defendant, a law book publishing company, included a Desk Book which contained a listing of the statutory periods of limitations for types of actions in the various states; that they relied thereon as to the limitation period in the State of Alabama for an action they were employed to prosecute there for their said clients; that during the first year after the cause of action arose, and in which it could have been sued upon in Alabama, the attorneys did not bring the action there because of reliance on information contained in the Desk Book which gave the Alabama limitation period for such an action as being six years, whereas in fact the limitation period was one year. Breach of implied warranty of fitness was alleged. A motion of the defendant to dismiss was denied as to the plaintiff lawyers individually, but was granted as to their clients William H. Cooper and Betty Cooper, his wife, for use and benefit of whom the lawyers also had sued.
Without expressing any opinion on the sufficiency of the complaint as it applies to *94the plaintiff attorneys individually — a question which we consider is not before us on this appeal — we affirm the order appealed from on authority of Rodriguez v. Shell’s City, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 590, as it appears from the complaint that the plaintiff clients were not users of the product.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Toombs v. Fort Pierce GAS Co., 208 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1968)…remedy, irrespective of privity, is limited to users. See modification of Carter in McBurnette, supra, 137 So. 2d p. 565 para. [1, 2], Rodriguez v. Shell’s City, Inc. (Fla.App.1962), 141 So. 2d 590; Engel v. Lawyer’s Co-op. Pub. Co. (Fla.App.1967), 198 So. 2d 93. The inherently dangerous instrumentality qualification of the privity requirement in warranty, when applicable, has instead been regarded as extending liability to those persons one “should expect to use the chattel lawfully or to be in the vicinit…
-
Engel v. Lawyers Coop. Publ'g Co., 201 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1967)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 198 So. 2d 93.…
Authorities Cited
- Rodriguez v. Shell's City, Inc., 141 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)