Comment on Cardozo v. True case
While reading the Cardozo v. True case, I was surprised that the plaintiff (following the logic of her argument) decided to sue the bookstore where she bought the cookbook rather than the grocery store where she bought the Dasheen roots. It seems more logical to me that a grocery store that regularly sells Dasheen roots could be expected to warn its customers about the physical properties of that product. Wouldn’t there be a better chance of winning an implied warranty case against the grocery store instead of the bookstore?
Comments Off on Comment on Cardozo v. True case