Hofstra Law Review


The citadel of privity has undergone a massive assault in the field of products liability yet still remains a viable force in warranty law. In most cases, the privity requirement is held to be a function of the dangerousness of the product, the type of harm caused and the situs of the chose in action. As a prerequisite to recovery under a contract theory for breach of warranty, courts have required a finding of privity -- a direct nexus between vendor and vendee. While the strict application of the doctrine created harsh results, courts made inroads to mitigate its effects and to satisfy judicial notions of justice where conduct was inexcusable and harm intolerable. The results in some instances were unpredictable and inconsistent until they were finally codified judicially into a category of exceptions that either supplied privity directly or obviated the need for its application, although in many instances the route taken was obfuscated. This article will explore the devices employed to evade the privity requirements and will discuss the necessity of extending judicial reasoning to its logical extreme--the elimination of the vertical privity barrier, regardless of the qualitative aspect of the harm caused.

Included in

Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.