Mazetti v. Armour & Company

Supreme Court of Washington · 1913 · Torts

75 Wash. 622 (1913)

Updated July 23, 2026

Tortsproducts liabilityfood productsimplied warrantyprivitymanufacturer liabilitysealed packagesno privity

Facts

Plaintiffs operated a restaurant and bought from the Seattle Grocery Company a carton of cooked tongue manufactured and packaged by Armour & Company, bearing Armour's name and prepared for food without further cooking. Plaintiffs alleged they relied on Armour's representations that its food products were pure, wholesome, and fit for human consumption. After plaintiffs served the tongue to a patron, the patron became sick and publicly denounced the food because the carton contained a foul, filthy, nauseating, and poisonous substance in its center. Plaintiffs alleged they had no knowledge or means of knowing the defect because it could not be discovered until the food was served, and they sought damages for lost reputation, business, and profits.

Issue

May a retailer or restaurant operator who is not in privity with the manufacturer sue the manufacturer directly for damages to business and reputation caused by unwholesome food sold in the manufacturer's original sealed package? More specifically, does the manufacturer's implied warranty or duty extend beyond the ultimate consumer to others injured in the legitimate channels of trade?

Rule

In the absence of an express warranty of quality, a manufacturer of food products under modern conditions impliedly warrants goods dispensed in original packages, and that warranty is available to all who may be damaged by reason of their use in the legitimate channels of trade. The manufacturer's obligation is not confined to immediate vendees or ultimate consumers where sealed food products are put on the market and intervening handlers have no practical opportunity to inspect them.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Oregon, Lena Ortiz runs a small deli. She buys a shipment of ready-to-eat sealed jars of chicken salad from Riverbend Provisions, a wholesaler, but the jars were manufactured and labeled by North Harbor Foods. One jar contains a hidden putrid mass that is not discoverable until served, and after a customer becomes ill and loudly complains in front of others, Lena alleges loss of reputation and sales.

If Lena sues North Harbor Foods directly, what is the strongest argument that her complaint states a valid claim under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that under modern conditions a manufacturer of food products dispensed in original packages impliedly warrants them, and that the warranty extends to all damaged in the legitimate channels of trade. That includes a retailer or restaurant operator harmed in business reputation and profits by hidden defects in sealed food, even without direct contractual privity.