Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-0283 Shoemaker v. The Hearst Corporation

By: dmc-admin//June 25, 2001//

01-0283 Shoemaker v. The Hearst Corporation

By: dmc-admin//June 25, 2001//

Listen to this article

Assuming, arguendo, that the Good Housekeeping Seal provided an express, limited warranty to Susan Shoemaker and that such a warranty was breached during the course of the move provided by Wheaton Van Lines Inc., we conclude that the breach was cured by the payment of an agreed-upon amount for all damaged, destroyed or lost personal property belonging to Shoemaker. Additionally, we conclude the circuit court did not err in awarding statutory costs to The Hearst Corporation. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. This opinion will not be published.

Dist IV, Rock County, Roethe, J., Roggensack, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Susan B. Shoemaker, Edgerton

For Respondent: Matthew J. Flynn, Milwaukee; David P. Muth, Milwaukee

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests