## Facts

- Sam Baxter bought a Model A Ford town sedan from St. John Motors, a retail dealer that had obtained the vehicle from Ford Motor Company.
- Baxter alleged that both Ford and the dealer represented that the windshield was “non-shatterable” or “shatter-proof” and would not “fly or shatter” on impact.
- Ford supplied catalogs and printed sales materials to dealers for distribution in selling cars; these materials stated that new Ford cars had “Triplex shatter-proof glass” windshields and that the glass would not “fly or shatter under the hardest impact.”
- While Baxter was driving through Snoqualmie Pass, a pebble thrown from a passing car struck the windshield, causing glass fragments to enter his left eye, resulting in its loss, and injuring his right eye.
- Baxter sued Ford and St. John Motors for damages, alleging breach of warranty based on the shatter-proof representations.
- The trial court excluded Ford’s catalogs and sales materials and, at the close of Baxter’s evidence, removed the case from the jury and entered judgment for both defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether Ford’s catalogs and printed sales materials were admissible to prove an express warranty by the manufacturer concerning the windshield’s shatter-proof qualities.
2. Whether a manufacturer may be liable to an ultimate consumer for breach of an express warranty created by advertising representations despite lack of contractual privity.
3. Whether the retail dealer could be liable for breach of warranty where the purchase contract expressly disclaimed dealer warranties.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed judgment for St. John Motors.
- The court reversed judgment for Ford Motor Company and remanded for a new trial against Ford.
- The court held the excluded catalogs and printed materials were admissible against Ford as evidence of an express warranty directed to consumers.
- The court held lack of privity did not bar Baxter’s express-warranty claim against Ford where the claimed quality was not readily detectable by ordinary inspection and the representations were intended to induce consumer purchases.
- The court held the dealer was not liable on warranty where the contract expressly provided the dealer made no warranty; manufacturer-warranty language on the reverse side of the purchase order was not admissible to establish a dealer warranty.

## Legal Principles

- Manufacturer advertising and printed sales materials distributed to influence consumer purchases can constitute an express warranty running to the ultimate consumer.
- A consumer may pursue breach of an express warranty against a manufacturer without privity when the consumer relies on the manufacturer’s representations and the falsity is not readily discoverable by ordinary examination.
- Contract terms expressly disclaiming dealer warranties can preclude treating manufacturer-warranty language as a dealer warranty.
- When admissible evidence could support findings of representation, reliance, breach, and proximate cause, those factual questions should be submitted to the jury rather than resolved by a directed judgment.

## Conclusion

The court permitted a consumer to proceed against a manufacturer on an express-warranty theory based on manufacturer-issued advertising materials, even without privity, while enforcing a dealer’s contractual disclaimer of warranties and limiting dealer liability.


Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 168 Wash. 456, 12 P.2d 409 (Wash. 1932)