there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose” include a third party who does not have privity of contract with the seller if no negligence is implied? Holding No, said the Court of Appeals. The provision does not include a third party who does not have privity of contract with the seller if no negligence is implied. If there is no privity of contract between third persons and the seller of food, there can be no implied warranty. The benefit of warranty (either express or implied) does not run with the chattel on its resale (and thus is unlike a covenant running with land, which does give a subsequent purchaser a right of action on a warranty). Reasoning The Court of appeals reasoned: In Rinaldi v. Mohican Co., the cause of action arose after the section of the Personal Property Law quoted took effect. Court held that “the mere purchase by a customer from a retail dealer in foods of an article ordinarily used for human consumption does by implication make known to the vendor the purpose for which the article is used.” In the case at hand, the plaintiff received the cake from her employer, who bought the cake from the defendant. Defendant is not liable to the plaintiff for her injuries because there was no contract between her and the defendant. The general rule is that a manufacturer or seller of food or other articles of personal property is not liable to third persons under an implied warranty. If there is no privity of contract, there is no implied warranty. Notes The plaintiff could have sued in tort rather than in contract (implied warranty), but plaintiff limited her right to recover to a breach of warranty. This indicates the continued relevance of privity in employment cases. References External links Open-source summary of the case New York (state) state case law Product liability case law 1922 in United States case law 1922 in New York (state)