Union Paint and Varnish Co. v. Dean 48 R.I. 288, 137 A. 469 (1927)
Dean bought a can of waterproof paint and painted his
The paint was supposed to have a 10 year warrantee.
Six months later, he went back and bought another can of
Just afterwards, he noticed that the roof was leaky and
the shingles rotted, presumably because of the poor quality of the first
can of paint.
Dean sued the paint manufacturer for breach of warrantee
and wanted his money back for the second can of paint.
Dean argued that the first can of paint performed poorly,
and so he should get his money back for the second can.
The Trial Court found for Dean, Union Paint appealed.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court found that the evidence
presented that the first can of paint performed poorly was not relevant
to the performance of the second can of paint.
Just because one batch of paint was bad, there was no
evidence that the second can of paint was bad. The condition of the
first can of paint does not help to prove/disprove that the second can
of paint is defective.
However, the evidence could have been considered relevant
to prove that it was reasonable to return the second barrel of paint, due
to fear that the second barrel is defective.