Sherman v. Buick was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of implied warranties. The plaintiff, Sherman, had purchased a Buick automobile from a dealer in New York. After the purchase, the car began to malfunction and Sherman brought suit against the manufacturer, Buick, for breach of implied warranty. The Supreme Court held that the implied warranty of merchantability was applicable in this case. The Court reasoned that the implied warranty of merchantability was a part of the contract between the parties and that the manufacturer was liable for any defects in the product. The Court also held that the implied warranty of merchantability was not limited to the time of sale, but extended to the time of delivery. The Court also held that the implied warranty of merchantability was not limited to the time of sale, but extended to the time of delivery. The Court reasoned that the implied warranty of merchantability was a part of the contract between the parties and that the manufacturer was liable for any defects in the product. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the implied warranty of merchantability was applicable in this case and that the manufacturer was liable for any defects in the product. The Court also held that the implied warranty of merchantability was not limited to the time of sale, but extended to the time of delivery.

In Sherman v. Buick, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a manufacturer could be held liable for damages caused by a defective product. The majority opinion found that the plaintiff had not proven that the defendant's negligence was responsible for his injury and thus dismissed his claim. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it should have been up to a jury to determine if there was sufficient evidence of negligence on behalf of the defendant in order for liability to attach. He argued further that even though no specific act or omission on part of the defendant may have been identified as causing harm, it did not necessarily mean they were free from any responsibility since their product had still caused damage due its defectiveness and lack of safety features. Therefore he concluded that under these circumstances, liability should rest with them regardless of how much fault can be attributed directly back at them individually