Warranty To Establish Privity In Ryan By Chynsky

In order, to establish warranty we must determine whether privity is present. In Chynsky it was established that “When someone other than the injured party purchases a food item, the injured party cannot establish privity of contract with the seller” On its face this would mean that Derval would be unable to establish privity because she was injured and not the purchaser of the salmon. However, there is an exception within the the law. In Ryan, a husband purchased bread, which his wife then consumed. The wife was injured due to a hidden pin in the bread and the grocer was held liable. The court established privity by creating the exception that the husband, “through his wife acted as his agent bought a loaf of bread at the defendant’s grocery.” This exception and its application in this case is dependent on the definition of agent. If Vitali is determined to be an agent of Derval then privity exists. If Vitali is not an agent of Derval then privity does not exist. The defendant will likely argue that the definition of agent will be that an agent acts at the direction of the principle. If applied to the relationship between Vitali and his stepdaughter, privity would not …show more content…
In Ryan, the definition can also be applied to the husband and wife relationship, as one spouse can act on behalf of the other. This relationship is similar to the stepfather-stepdaughter relationship because Vitali can purchase food on behalf of his family, including his stepdaughter Derval. Derval will argue that Vitali acted as her agent because he acted on her behalf, and that the direction of the principle is not necessary for agency because Vitali acted at the direction of the seller, for whom he was not an agent. Therefore, the court will likely rule in Derval’s favor because Vitali acted as Derval’s agent in purchasing the salmon on her behalf, while under the direction of the seller’s