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

P contacted defendant Farm (D) Chemical to order the herbicides Lasso and Lorox for the no-till cultivation of soybeans. P spoke with Gregory, an employee of Farm (D), on the telephone and told him that he was planning the no-till cultivation of soybeans on 145 acres of his land and described the type of soil on the land. Gregory gave Dual 8E a good recommendation and told P that it would 'do a good job,' would be less expensive to use than the chemicals he had used the previous year, and would also be less risky to use on P's type of land. Dual 8E could be mixed with Paraquat and a surfactant to replace Lasso and Lorox. P decided to use Dual 8E and ordered thirty-five gallons. Dual 8E was ineffective in killing crabgrass. P also introduced evidence tending to show that Dual 8E must be mixed with Sencor, Lexone, or Lorox and either Ortho Paraquat CL or Roundup. Farm (D) had reason to know of the particular purpose, the no-till cultivation of soybeans, for which the product was required, and that P was relying on its recommendation when he ordered the Dual 8E. The court ruled for Ds, and P appealed.

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

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

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