Patron sued a restaurant after a glass of water exploded in his hand. Under the theories of liability asserted by plaintiff, before it could be found liable, the restaurant must have been found to be in the business of selling water or water glasses and that the restaurant had warranted that the water was fit for consumption. The Court found that, although the water was complimentary, it was not truly free. The water was offered as part of the meal purchased by the plaintiff, which was the business of the restaurant. Following, the Court determined that by serving the water, the restaurant implied that it was fit for consumption and that the container holding the water was fit for its purpose as well. For these reasons, the restaurant's motion to dismiss was denied.
June 2004 Archives
Stop & Shop Supermarket was found to have violated deceptive practice laws by selling expired food and toiletries. The court found that such practices could mislead a reasonable consumer as to the quality or grade of that product. The court held that allowing those items to remain on the store shelf was an affirmative representation that those items were of normal quality and suitable for use. The store's argument that each product was date marked and therefore not misleading was rejected by the Court because a reasonable consumer could nonetheless be mislead.
Where a landlord's rent demands were confusing and contradictory, and unable to be explained, the petition against the tenant was dismissed because it failed to appraise the tenant of the periods for which rent was demanded and the amount due.