Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P raised chickens for D. Under their contract, P was required once a year to give a thorough cleaning to their chicken house and the chicken coop pallets. D lent P a high-pressure spray rig. When Mrs. Bowdoin (P) was using the spray rig to clean the pallets when an article of her clothing caught in the safety shield covering the spray rig's power take-off shaft. P was pulled into the shaft and suffered severe injuries. The rig was manufactured by FMC Corporation and the safety shield, and drive shaft component was manufactured by NEAPCO, Inc. D purchased the spray rig from FMC through an FMC dealer. Two weeks after the sale, the spray rig was shipped to the dealer and then delivered to D. An instruction manual was included when it was delivered. The last page of the instruction manual included a purported warranty disclaimer, which stated: 'The foregoing warranty is expressly in lieu of any and all other warranties, express, implied, statutory or otherwise (including, but without limitation, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose).' P sued D, FMC (D) and eventually NEAPCO (D) in part for a breach of the implied warranties of fitness and merchantability. FMC (D) and NEAPCO (D) moved for summary judgment. The district court concluded that under Alabama law, Ds had effectively disclaimed the implied warranties with the disclaimer in the instruction manual. It granted summary judgment and dismissed P's implied warranties claims. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.