Did the defendants breach an express warranty to the plaintiff? Explain.
For more than forty years, Rose Cipollone smoked between one and two packs of cigarettes a day. Upon her death from lung cancer, Rose’s husband, Antonio Cipollone, filed suit against Liggett Group, Inc., Lorillard, Inc., and Philip Morris, Inc., three of the leading firms in the tobacco industry, for the wrongful death of his wife. Many theories of liability and defenses were asserted in this decidedly complex and protracted litigation. One theory of liability claimed by Mr. Cipollone was breach of express warranty. It is uncontested that all three manufacturers ran multimedia ad campaigns that contained affirmations, promises, or innuendos that smoking cigarettes was safe. For example, ads for Chesterfield cigarettes boasted that a medical specialist could find no adverse health effects in subjects after six months of smoking. Chesterfields were also advertised as being manufactured with “electronic miracle” technology that made them “better and safer for you.” Another ad stated that Chesterfield ingredients were tested and approved by scientists from leading universities. Another brand, L&M, publicly touted the “miracle tip” filter, claiming it was “just what the doctor ordered.” At trial, the defendant tobacco companies were not permitted to try to prove that Mrs. Cipollone disbelieved or placed no reliance on the advertisements and their safety assurances. Did the defendants breach an express warranty to the plaintiff? Explain.
This case has an express warranty. The jurisdiction also states that Company C has been displaying the information about the health consequences of smoking after 1 January 1966 since it has become necessary to inform with the warnings. The main concern is a breach in express warranty case. Any promise or any sample or warranty must be made a part of the basis of creating an express warranty.
On the one note, the companies selling tobacco want anyone to prove that Individual C relied on the advertisements and bought the cigarettes based on the advertisements only. On the other note, the jurisdiction believes that any affirmation in advertisements becomes a case for a bargain for Company C regardless of Company C knowing about the advertisement. Individual P has provided proofs for the basis of an express warranty that any affirmation was heard or read by Individual C, which proves that the tobacco companies are liable for the claim.
To review the dispute, Individual R had somewhere heard or read about the advertisements being displayed by Company C. Individual R believed the advertisements to be either true or worthy to be pondered on.