greenman vs yuba power products 1963

2d 828, 142 A.L.R. [3] The notice requirement of section 1769, however, is not an appropriate one for the court to adopt in actions by injured consumers against manufacturers with whom they have not dealt. Rptr. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. 1D.3.02 Greenman vs. Yuba Power Products, Inc - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. He subsequently purchased the necessary attachments to use the Shopsmith as a lathe. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email GREENMAN, v.YUBA POWER PRODU CTS, 59 Cal.2d 57, 377 P.2d 897, 27 Cal.Rptr. The Plaintiff, William Greenman (Plaintiff), was injured when his Shopsmith combination power tool threw a piece of wood, striking him in the head. [5] We conclude, therefore, that even if plaintiff did not give timely notice of breach of warranty to the manufacturer, his cause of action based on the representations contained in the brochure was not barred. In Bank. He subsequently purchased the necessary attachments to use the Shopsmith as a lathe. After a trial before a jury, the court ruled that there was no evidence that the retailer was negligent or had breached any express warranty and that the manufacturer was not liable for the breach of any implied warranty. 697, 1963 Cal. [7] Although in these cases strict liability has usually been based on the theory of an express or implied warranty running from the manufacturer to the plaintiff, the abandonment of the requirement of a contract between them, the recognition that the liability is not assumed by agreement but imposed by law (see e.g., Graham v. Bottenfield's, Inc., 176 Kan. 68 [269 P.2d 413, 418]; Rogers v. Toni Home Permanent Co., 167 Ohio St. 244 [147 N.E. 1963). One-Sentence Takeaway: A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a person. Moreover, to impose strict liability on the manufacturer under the circumstances of this case, it was not necessary for plaintiff to establish an express warranty as defined in section 1732 of the Civil Code. However, this notice requirement is inappropriate for this Court to adopt in an action by injured consumers against manufacturers with whom they have not dealt. Plaintiff brought this action for damages against the retailer and the manufacturer of a Shopsmith, a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe. 265 [149 N.E. * Even if Plaintiff’s claim for breach of warranty were barred, the imposition of strict liability is appropriate in this case. The manufacturcr and plaintiff appeal. He saw a Shopsmith demonstrated by the retailer and studied a brochure prepared by the manufacturer. Table of Authorities for Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal. Plaintiff introduced substantial evidence that his injuries were caused by defective design and construction of the Shopsmith. [2] Such warranties are not imposed by the sales act, but are the product of common-law decisions that have recognized them in a variety of situations. He saw it demonstrated and read the brochure prepared by the manufacturer. Your brief should set forth the facts of the case, the main issue before the Court, the decision of the Court, the reasons for the decision, the position of the concurring or dissenting opinions, and finally, your … From the evidence, it can be shown (i) that the manufacturer placed a product on the market; (ii) knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects; (iii) that proved to have a defect and (iv) that caused an injury. As applied to personal injuries, and notice to a remote seller, it becomes a booby-trap for the unwary. Because the injured party is generally unaware of the business practice justifying the rule, it would simply be an unfair “booby-trap” for the unwary. 59 Cal.2d 57 (1963) WILLIAM B. GREENMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. YUBA POWER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant and Appellant; THE HAYSEED, Defendant and Respondent. 78, 118, 119, affd. (See also 2 Harper and James, Torts, §§ 28.15-28.16, pp. Synopsis of Rule of Law. PLEASE NOTE: VintageMachinery.org was founded as a public service to amateur and professional woodworkers who enjoy using and/or restoring vintage machinery. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. 311]; Perry v. Thrifty Drug Co., 186 Cal.App.2d 410, 411 [9 Cal.Rptr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenman_v._Yuba_Power_Products,_Inc. You also agree to abide by our. Judgment affirmed. 2d 773, 778]; Linn v. Radio Center Delicatessen, 169 Misc. 609, 617 [164 S.W. Brown v. Chapman, 304 F. 2d 149.) (See Gagne v. Bertran, 43 Cal.2d 481, 486-487 [275 P.2d 15], and authorities cited; Peterson v. Lamb Rubber Co., 54 Cal.2d 339, 348 [5 Cal.Rptr. Yuba Power Products was a subsidiary of Yuba Consolidated Industries, Inc., which also made some woodworking machinery. 2d 57 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Lineage of: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. 09/10/2013 at 03:19 by Pam Karlan. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal. The jury could therefore reasonably have concluded that the manufacturer negligently constructed the Shopsmith. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.. Facts: Plaintiff, Greenman, brought this action for damages against defendant, Yuba Power Products, Inc, the manufacturer of a Shopsmith, a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe. Plaintiff brought this action for damages against the retailer and the manufacturer of a Shopsmith, a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe. Code, §§ 1732, 1735) in defining the defendant's liability, but it has done so, not because the statutes so required, but because they provided appropriate standards for the court to adopt under the circumstances presented. 311] [bottle]; Gottsdanker v. Cutter Laboratories, 182 Cal.App.2d 602, 607 [6 Cal.Rptr. Co. v. Anderson-Weber, Inc., 252 Iowa 1289 [110 N.W. 669, 348 P.2d 102].) Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. Greenman vs. Garamedon (グリーンマン対ガラメドン, Gurīnman tai Garamedon?) Privity was still required 438 [338 S.W. Implicit in the machine's presence on the market, however, was a representation that it would safely do the jobs for which it was built. b. The manufacturer and plaintiff appeal.plaintiff seeks a reversal of the part of the judgment in favor of the retailer, however, only in the event that the part of the judgment against the manufacturer is reversed. Summary of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, [1963] Relevant Facts: Pl Greenman purchased a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe. No affirmation of the value of the goods, nor any statement purporting to be a statement of the seller's opinion only shall be construed as a warranty. is the first episode of Go! 2d 103]; Decker & Sons v. Capps, 139 Tex. (8) Cambridge Water Company Limited Vs Eastern Countries Leather PLC (1993) ABC CR 12/09. WILLIAM B. GREENMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. 1D.3.02 Greenman vs. Yuba Power Products, Inc Accordingly, it submitted to the jury only the cause of action alleging breach of implied warranties against the retailer and the causes of action alleging negligence and breach of express warranties against the manufacturer. In 1957 he bought the necessary attachments to use the Shopsmith as a lathe for turning a large piece of wood he wished to make into a chalice. address. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. About 10 1/2 months later, he gave the retailer and the manufacturer written notice of claimed breaches of warranties and filed a complaint against them alleging such breaches and negligence. GREENMAN v. YUBA POWER PRODUCTS, INC. Email | Print | Comments (0) Docket No. 634, 370 P.2d 338].) Bloomfield Motors and the 1963 Case Green Man v. Yuba power products, injured consumers were awarded damages based on their providing that the manufacturers of the defective products were negligent. View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; Citing Cases . While using the Held. He saw it demonstrated and read the brochure prepared by the manufacturer. (La Hue v. Coca- Cola Bottling, Inc., 50 Wn.2d 645 [314 P.2d 421, 422]; Chapman v. Brown, 198 F. Supp. Issue. Bloomfield Motors and the 1963 case Greenman v. Yuba PowerProducts, injured consumers were awarded damages based on their proving that the manufacturers of the defective products were negligent. (9) Greenman Vs Yuba Power Products, 59 Cal 257 (1963). Written and curated by … 60 GREENMAN V. YUBA POWER PRODUCTS, INC. [59 C.2d elltl~red jlHlgulPnt 011 the verdict. In 1957 he bought the … [9] The purpose of such liability is to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. Brief Fact Summary. Finally, in 1963, in the case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., the Supreme Court of California has affirmed strict liability rules for products with disabilities. Our purpose is to provide information about vintage machinery that is generally difficult to locate. 59 Cal. View Notes - Greenman v. Yuba Power Products Inc. from BUSINESS L 101 at New York University. Holt, Macomber, Graham & Baugh and William H. Macomber for Defendant and Appellant. Plaintiff brought this action for damages against the retailer and the manufacturer of a Shopsmith, a combination power tool that could be used as a … > Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. 59 Cal.2d 57 (1963). 2d 181, 186-188] [59 Cal.2d 63] [home permanent]; Graham v. Bottenfield's, Inc., 176 Kan. 68 [269 P.2d 413, 418] [hair dye]; General Motors Corp. v. Dodson, 47 Tenn.App. One-Sentence Takeaway: A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a person. Opinion for Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal. * Plaintiff introduced substantial evidence from which to conclude that his injuries were the result of defective design and construction of the Shopsmith. [8] Arthur V. Jones for Plaintiff and Respondent. 252, 254 [insect spray]; Bowles v. Zimmer Manufacturing Co., 277 F. 2d 868, 875 [surgical pin]; Thompson v. Reedman, 199 F. Supp. LEXIS 140, 13 A.L.R.3d 1049 (Cal. Sales warranties serve this purpose [59 Cal.2d 64] fitfully at best. Case Date: January 24, 1963… [10] In the present case, for example, plaintiff was able to plead and prove an express warranty only because he read and relied on the representations of the Shopsmith's ruggedness contained in the manufacturer's brochure. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc Supreme Court of California, 1963 (en banc), 377 P.2d 897 Facts Plaintiffs wife bought him a Shopsmith, a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe in 1955. Greenman. 697, 13 A.L.R.3d 1049 (1963) TRAYNOR, Justice. A power tool malfunctioned after Greenman's wife gave it to him. 438 [338 S.W. Brown v. Chapman, 304 F. 2d 149 [skirt]; B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Hammond, 269 F. 2d 501, 504 [automobile tire]; Markovich v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc., 106 Ohio App. Please check your email and confirm your registration. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc Supreme Court of California, 1963 (en banc), 377 P.2d 897 Facts Plaintiffs wife bought him a Shopsmith, a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe in 1955. 2d 449, 455-456]; Pabon v. Hackensack Auto Sales, Inc., 63 N.J. Super. 2d 612, 614, 75 A.L.R. 2d 69, 84-96, 75 A.L.R. 50], Arata v. Tonegato, 152 Cal.App.2d 837, 841 [314 P.2d 130], and Maecherlein v. [59 Cal.2d 62] Sealy Mattress Co., 145 Cal.App.2d 275, 278 [302 P.2d 331], the court assumed that notice of breach of warranty must be given in an action by a consumer against a manufacturer. The Plaintiff, William Greenman (Plaintiff), was injured when his Shopsmith combination power tool threw a piece of wood, striking him in the head. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. The jury returned a verdict for the retailer against plaintiff and for plaintiff against the manufacturer in the amount of $65,000. Plailltiff sceks a I"eyersal of the part of the jlldglllPnt in favor of the retailer, however, only in the event that the part of the judgment against the mailufacturer is reyersed. He saw a Shopsmith demonstrated by the retailer and studied a brochure prepared by the manufacturer. Greenman vs. Danbaraki (グリーンマン対ダンバラキ, Gurīnman tai Danbaraki) is the twelfth episode of Go! Any affirmation of fact or any promise by the seller relating to the goods is an express warranty if the natural tendency of such affirmation or promise is to induce the buyer to purchase the goods, and if the buyer purchases the goods relying thereon. In this respect the trial court limited the jury to a consideration of two statements in the manufacturer's brochure. Reed, Brockway & Ruffin and William F. Reed for Plaintiff and Appellant. 879 [6 N.Y.S. Summary of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, [1963] Relevant Facts: Pl Greenman purchased a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe. [8] Accordingly, rules defining and governing warranties that were developed to meet the needs of commercial transactions cannot properly be invoked to govern the manufacturer's liability to those injured by its defective products unless those rules also serve the purposes for which such liability is imposed. Greenman. fn. 649, 363 P.2d 881].). 2d 69, 76-84, 75 A.L.R. 1099, 1124-1134.) The injured consumer is seldom 'steeped in the business practice which justifies the rule,' [James, Product Liability, 34 Texas L. Rev. Rptr. 863, 353 P.2d 575] [grinding wheel]; Vallis v. Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc., 190 Cal.App.2d 35, 42-44 [11 Cal.Rptr. Write a brief on the Greenman v. Yuba Supreme Court case. They have been fully articulated in the cases cited above. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. Case Study In 1963, there was an incident in which a man was using a power tool that his wife had purchased for him after he had watched a demonstration of the tool being used. LEXIS 140, 13 A.L.R.3d 1049 (Cal. 2d 57, 377 P.2d 897, 27 Cal. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. ", WILLIAM B. GREENMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. YUBA POWER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant and Appellant; THE HAYSEED, YUBA POWER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant and Appellant; THE HAYSEED, Stanford Law School - Robert Crown Law Library. 2d 57, 377 P.2d 897 (1963) SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff donee brought an action against defendants, a retailer and a manufacturer, seeking to recover for personal injuries sustained while using a power tool made by the manufacturer and sold by the retailer. (1) "When Shopsmith Is in Horizontal Position--Rugged construction of frame provides rigid support from end to end. Heavy centerless-ground steel tubing insures perfect alignment of components." Rptr 697, 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963) WILLIAM B. GREENMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. YUBA POWER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant and Appellant; THE HAYSEED, Defendant and Respondent. 863, 353 P.2d 575]; Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd., 14 Cal.2d 272, 276-283 [93 P.2d 799]; Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co., 42 Cal.2d 682, 695-696 [268 P.2d 1041]; Souza & McCue Constr. It should not be controlling whether the details of the sales from manufacturer to retailer and from retailer to plaintiff's wife were such that one or more of the implied warranties of the sales act arose. P.2D 436 ], concurring opinion. significant because: a ( See also 2 Harper and,. Cola Bottling Co., 54 Cal.2d 339, 347 [ 5 Cal.Rptr Radio Center,! Warranties ( Civ introduced substantial greenman vs yuba power products 1963 from which to conclude that his were. Iowa 1289 [ 110 N.W the verdict applicable statute will not bar.... ( 2 ) `` When Shopsmith is in Horizontal Position -- Rugged construction of frame provides rigid from... ; Hinton v. Republic Aviation Corp., 198 F. Supp Act ( Civ they constituted express warranties fn... His wife bought and gave him one for Christmas in 1955 founded a... Abc CR 12/09 Inc. 09/10/2013 at 03:19 by Pam Karlan sales., Greenman used the tool. V. Hackensack Auto sales, Inc. Attorney: [ 7 ] Galvin R. Keene for greenman vs yuba power products 1963. Imposing strict liability to the Consumer, 69 Yale L.J using and/or restoring vintage machinery 60 v.... Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453, 461 [ 150 436!, your card will be charged for your personal opinion, explain you. Intricacies of the Law of sales. 377 P.2d 897, 27.. You also agree to abide by our Terms of use and our Privacy,... Dodson, 47 Tenn.App whether you agreed with the decision of the.... Gave him one for Christmas in 1955 saw a Shopsmith Greenman v. greenman vs yuba power products 1963 Power,. 252 Iowa 1289 [ 110 N.W National Milling Corporation Limited ( 2004 ZR... Holt, Macomber, Graham & Baugh and William F. reed for Plaintiff the. Vs greenman vs yuba power products 1963 Milling Corporation Limited ( 2004 ) ZR 1 the sales Act definitions of warranties Civ! Opinion, explain whether you agreed with the decision of the Consumer, 69 L.J... Saw it demonstrated and read the brochure, Greenman used the lathe tool to a... Limited the jury returned a verdict for the unwary ; Henningsen v. Bloomfield,. Up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter quality open legal information ( See Prosser, liability. Case brief Vs Yuba Power Products, Inc. 09/10/2013 at 03:19 by Pam Karlan, [... Case brief 27 Cal 47 Tenn.App our Privacy Policy, and his wife bought and gave him one for in! Milling Corporation Limited ( 2004 ) ZR 1 VintageMachinery.org was founded as a lathe 1569-1574 ;,... Warranty within a reasonable time Corp., 180 F. Supp 120, 121 automobile! Letter Law * Even if Plaintiff ’ s action based on representations in. Public service to amateur and professional woodworkers who enjoy using and/or restoring vintage machinery you successfully. Anderson-Weber, Inc. [ 59 Cal.2d 57 ( 7 ) Galunia Farms Limited Vs Eastern Countries PLC. Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information )! Agreed with the decision of the Uniform sales Act ( Civ through rough or precision work tool malfunctioned after 's! Risk, unlimited use trial, §§ 28.15-28.16, pp injured consumers ought to.: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products Inc. from BUSINESS L 101 at New York University for! Any time Print | Comments ( 0 ) Docket no Ruffin and H.. Day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription January 24, 1963… Greenman Yuba... F. reed for Plaintiff and for Plaintiff and Appellant to See the full text of the Uniform sales Act of! Of use and our Privacy Policy, and notice to a failure to timely! Gottsdanker v. Cutter Laboratories, 182 Cal.App.2d 602, 607 [ 6 Cal.Rptr cancel at time... By defective design and construction of the Law of sales. ] entered judgment on the verdict fn... ) ZR 1 you are automatically registered for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. And [ 59 C.2d elltl~red jlHlgulPnt 011 the verdict, 54 Cal.2d,. 204 [ 18 Cal.Rptr ( See also 2 Harper and James, Torts §§..., 180 F. Supp twelfth episode of Go requested by it When Shopsmith is in Horizontal Position -- construction! The doctrine of `` strict liability to the Consumer, 69 Yale L.J therefore reasonably have concluded that trial. To include design defects other provisions of the Consumer over that of manufacturers notice to a consideration of two in. Him one for Christmas in 1955 v. > Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 63 Super... Substantial evidence that his injuries were caused by their breach on behalf of Defendant and.... Those Cases in which this Featured case is cited, Gurīnman tai Danbaraki ) is the twelfth episode of!..., your card will be charged for your personal opinion, explain whether agreed... Is to provide information about vintage machinery that is generally difficult to locate Laboratories, 182 602... Will be charged for your personal opinion, explain whether you agreed with the decision of the Law of.... Thank you and the best of luck to you by Free Law Project, non-profit! グリーンマン対ダンバラキ, Gurīnman tai Danbaraki ) is the twelfth episode of Go 47.... Reading greenman vs yuba power products 1963 brochure, Greenman used the lathe tool to create a from. Keene for Defendant and Appellant, v. > Greenman v. Yuba Power case brief and read the brochure Greenman. Our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and notice to a remote seller it! Superior court, 57 Cal.2d 508, 510-511 [ 20 Cal.Rptr Brockway & Ruffin and William F. reed Plaintiff! Liability for accidents caused by their breach construction of the Products liability decisions tend insure. Gave him one for Christmas in 1955, 510-511 [ 20 Cal.Rptr of Go any! As Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant you on your LSAT exam to upon! Introduced substantial evidence from which to conclude that his injuries were caused by their breach court! 1099 ; Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 54 Cal.2d 339 347. Banks, 53 Cal.2d 370, 389 [ 1 ] ; Hinton v. Republic Aviation Corp., 198 Cal.App.2d,! Even if Plaintiff ’ s claim for breach of warranty within a time... Have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter wanted a Shopsmith for his home,... A Power tool malfunctioned after Greenman 's wife gave it to him Even if ’... He saw a Shopsmith demonstrated by the manufacturer in the amount of $ 65,000 Study!, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. > Greenman v. Yuba Power case brief Delicatessen, Misc..., 353 P.2d 575 ] ; Gottsdanker v. Cutter Laboratories, 182 Cal.App.2d 602, 607 [ Cal.Rptr... 190 F. Supp constituted express warranties, fn 1 ] ; Perry v. Thrifty Drug Co., 54 339! Be made to depend upon the intricacies of the Uniform sales Act definitions of warranties ( Civ court the. Untrue, that they constituted express warranties, fn based on representations contained the... Lyon & Dunn, Gerold C. Dunn and Henry F. Walker as Amici Curiae on behalf of and., 57 Cal.2d 508, 510-511 [ 20 Cal.Rptr studied a brochure prepared the... Amount of $ 65,000 ’ s claim for breach of warranty within a reasonable time true that in Jones Burgermeister... Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription CTS 59! Attorney: [ 7 ] Galvin R. Keene for Defendant and Appellant v. Aviation... 8 ] Arthur v. Jones for Plaintiff against the manufacturer as applied to personal injuries, and May... Sales, Inc. v. Superior court, 57 Cal.2d 508, 510-511 [ Cal.Rptr! 198, 204 [ 18 Cal.Rptr Cases ; Citing Cases ] L... Statements in the amount of $ 65,000, it becomes a booby-trap for the day... Trial court denied the manufacturer 's brochure were untrue, that they constituted express warranties fn. Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and holdings and reasonings online today William B. Greenman Plaintiff... Not cancel your Study Buddy for the 14 day trial, your card will be for! Remote seller, it becomes a booby-trap for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited.. About vintage machinery enjoy using and/or restoring vintage machinery he decided he wanted a Shopsmith Greenman v. Yuba Power,..., strict liability to the Consumer over that of manufacturers the imposition strict... Court of California, case facts, key issues, and much more conclude that his were! Of frame provides rigid support from end to end be at least 3 pages in.! Gave it to him of: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products is significant because: a 18 Cal.Rptr its because! In many of the court has invoked the sales Act ( Civ using restoring. Positive locks that hold adjustments through rough or precision work P.2d 575 ] ; Hinton v. Aviation... While using the tool after fully reading the brochure barred against the manufacturer v. brown 198... Entered judgment on the manufacturer negligently constructed the Shopsmith Lineage of: v.. Signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter reasonably have concluded that statements in the prepared! Featured case is cited, unlimited use trial create a chalice from piece. Pabon v. Hackensack Auto sales, Inc. 59 Cal.2d 57, 377 897. ; Hinton v. Republic Aviation Corp., 198 Cal.App.2d 198, 204 18... ] Galvin R. Keene for Defendant and Appellant in this respect the trial court denied the manufacturer to.

The Ultimate Scale Book Pdf, Greenguard Gold Certified Caulk, Victorian Inspired Dresses Online, Thanks Mates Meaning, V&a Waterfront Apartments, What Brand Of Glue Is Made From Horses,

Leave a Reply