Anderson's Business Law and the Legal Environment 20th Edition by David Twomey,Marianne Jennings

Exercise 8

The 1143 East Jersey Avenue Associates, Inc., owned a 10-story building. The Associates hired Duall Building Restoration, Inc., to restore the surface of its building. The contract between the Associates and Duall specified that Duall would use Monsey, a waterproof paint manufactured by Monsey Products, to cover the three brick sides of the building.
Shortly after the Modac paint was applied to the three sides of the building, it began to peel disastrously. One of the principals in the Associates described the situation as follows: "The entire building is peeling. It's … going wild. I mean... the surface is a whole bunch of spaghetti. Maybe noodles, I should say. It's curlicues of surface coming off all over the place." The Associates sued both Duall and Monsey Products. Monsey Products claimed that the Associates were remote purchasers and it was not liable to the Associates because of lack of privity. It would cost $ 185,000 for a new paint job. Can there be recovery? As you answer, be sure to discuss which warranty theory you would use and whether the issue of privity prevents recove1y. [ Duall Bldg. Restoration, Inc. v 1143 East jersey Avenue Associates, Inc., 652 A2d 1225 (NJ Super)]