## Facts

- John V. Lane bought a can of “Swanson Boned Chicken,” packed by C. A. Swanson & Sons and sold by Foods Co.
- Lane alleged defendants expressly warranted the product would be free of chicken bones and fit for human consumption.
- Lane claimed a hidden bone in the canned chicken lodged in his throat, causing serious injury and medical expenses.
- Lane alleged he gave notice of breach to each defendant.
- Defendants denied any express warranty that the contents were bone-free, admitted a warranty of fitness for human consumption, and pleaded contributory negligence.
- The label prominently stated “Boned Chicken.”
- A newspaper advertisement described the product and included the phrase “No bones. No waste.”
- The trial court found no express warranty that the contents were free of bones, found a warranty of fitness for human consumption, and found no breach of that fitness warranty.
- On appeal, Lane relied only on the asserted express warranty of complete bonelessness, not implied warranty theories.

## Issues

1. Whether the label term “Boned Chicken,” alone or with advertising stating “No bones. No waste.,” created an express warranty that the product would be entirely free of bones.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that no such express warranty existed and that any warranty of fitness for human consumption was not breached.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for defendants.
- The court held the evidence did not require a finding that defendants expressly warranted the product would be completely free of bones.
- The court accepted the trial court’s finding that “boned chicken” was a descriptive term understood to mean major bones removed, not removal of every small bone or fragment.
- The court treated the “No bones. No waste.” advertising language, in context, as insufficient to establish an enforceable promise of absolute bonelessness.
- Because Lane limited his appeal to the asserted express warranty of bone-free contents, the trial court’s finding of no breach of fitness for human consumption did not change the outcome.

## Legal Principles

- Whether labeling or promotional statements constitute an express warranty, and the scope of any such warranty, may present factual questions resolved by the trier of fact.
- Descriptive food labeling is construed in light of ordinary consumer understanding, trade practice, and practical limits of processing; it does not necessarily promise absolute perfection.
- Generalized advertising language may be treated as non-warranting promotional statements unless the evidence shows it was understood as a specific contractual promise.
- On appeal, supported trial court findings on warranty existence and scope are upheld under substantial-evidence review.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a defense judgment because “Boned Chicken” labeling and “No bones. No waste.” advertising did not, on the facts found, create an express warranty that canned chicken would be entirely free of all bones or fragments.


Lane v. C. A. Swanson & Sons, 130 Cal. App. 2d 210, 278 P.2d 723 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)