## Facts

- Lemieux Lumber Company, Inc. purchased a four-wheel-drive Ford pickup through an authorized Ford dealer for use in muddy, rough, wet job-site conditions.
- Before purchase, Lemieux’s president reviewed Ford promotional materials and a brochure depicting the model performing rugged off-road tasks and representing it as suitable for such conditions.
- Lemieux relied on these manufacturer-directed representations in deciding to buy the truck for off-road, wet terrain use.
- After purchase, when used in the intended conditions, the truck repeatedly malfunctioned and failed to perform as represented.
- Lemieux sued Ford Motor Company (the manufacturer), asserting breach of express warranty based on Ford’s representations and breach of implied warranty of fitness for the particular purpose.

## Issues

1. Whether an ultimate purchaser may recover directly from a manufacturer for breach of express warranty absent contractual privity where the purchaser relied on the manufacturer’s advertising and representations.
2. Whether lack of privity bars a claim against a manufacturer for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose when the manufacturer’s materials were aimed at inducing that particular use and were relied upon.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for Lemieux.
- The court held that privity of contract was not required under these facts for Lemieux to proceed directly against Ford on warranty theories.
- The court treated Ford’s promotional representations, made to induce purchase and specific use, as capable of creating enforceable express warranties to the ultimate purchaser.
- The court also allowed an implied fitness theory where the manufacturer’s marketing evidenced knowledge of, and solicitation for, the particular off-road use and the buyer’s reliance.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturer’s specific, product-related advertising and representations directed to prospective end-users can create express warranties enforceable by an ultimate purchaser even without privity.
- When a manufacturer intends and foreseeably expects end-users to rely on its representations, it may not avoid warranty responsibility solely because the product was sold through an intermediary dealer.
- Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose may run from manufacturer to ultimate purchaser where the manufacturer’s conduct shows awareness of the intended particular use and the purchase was induced by that understanding.
- In warranty actions for economic loss, strict privity may yield where the manufacturer’s own representations form the basis of the warranty obligation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld liability against the manufacturer for warranty breaches despite no direct sales contract, reasoning that manufacturer-directed promotional representations intended to induce purchase and a specific use can create express and (on these facts) implied warranty obligations running to the ultimate buyer.


Ford Motor Co. v. Lemieux Lumber Co., 418 S.W.2d 909 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1967)