Helen Henningsen Case

In first Place, I´m going to introduce some concepts about products liability law and products liability; which refers to the liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacture of any product for any damage or harm caused by that product. This includes the manufacturer of component parts

1. Discuss and explain four exceptions to the warrant requirement. What are the prerequisites for each exception? Be sure to provide examples.

1. Breach of an express warranty - An express warranty is a guarantee from the seller of a product that specifies the extent to which the quality or performance of the product is assured and states the conditions under which the product can be returned, replaced, or repaired. It is often given in the form of a specific, written "Warranty" document. However, a warranty may also arise by operation of law based upon the seller's description of the goods, and perhaps their source and quality, and any material deviation from that specification would violate the guarantee. For example, an advertisement describing a product is often full of express warranties; the product must substantially conform to what is advertised. Many advertisers insert disclaimers for this purpose (e.g., "actual color/mileage/results may vary", or "not shown actual size"). Commonly, written warranties will assure the buyer that an article is of good quality and against defects in "materials and workmanship." A warranty may also apply to services that

Question 14 5 out of 5 points Which of the following is not a rationale of strict product liability? Answer Selected Answer: Correct Answer: Manufacturers should not escape liability simply because they acted negligently as opposed to intentionally. Manufacturers should not escape liability simply because they acted negligently as opposed to intentionally.

This story is replete with fascinating facts and the intricacies that are inherent in the facts of the case make for a great story.The baseball bat was broken from the outset when it was bought by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant should have to return the baseball bat and pay the money back to the plaintiff that plaintiff paid for said bat. The plaintiff bought a baseball bat from the defendant and the baseball bat turned out to be broken because, since as soon as the defendant used the bat to play baseball, the bat shattered into a million pieces. Shattering into a million pieces certainly violates the implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC 2-314). No Industria De Calcados Martini Ltda. v.

In the Jacob & Youngs, Incorporated vs. George E. Kent case, Jacob & Youngs, the plaintiff, claims that there was a breach of a clause in the contract with the defendant, George E. Kent. The clause stated that any work that is either defective or not in accordance with specifications will be

A dealer sold a new car to Raymond Smith. The sales contract contained language expressly disclaiming liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car and limiting the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replacement of the defective part. One month after purchasing the auto, Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car.

u. P2) This implies that the seller who intends to enter a contract with a customer has a duty to disclose exactly what the customer is buying and what the terms of the sale are.

| says that producers must provide a clearly written warranty if they choose to offer any warranty.

The disclaimer of warranties was not unconscionable and therefore was valid and binding on the plaintiff

the disclaimer was also found substantively unconscionable. The court held that assuming a buyer of a standardized mass produced product from an industry seller would make that purchase without any enforceable performance standards is patently unreasonable. Id. at 491. The court further found that the use of a disclaimer to prevent a buyer from reasonably relying on the performance representations of a product further calls into question the commercial reasonableness of the agreement. Id. The one-sided result in A & M Produce Co. would have been the businessman being forced to pay for machinery that never worked. When taken in consideration with the procedural unconscionability of the agreement, the unreasonable reallocation of risk resulting in the one-sided outcome was found to outweigh any justification the manufacturer could have given, and was therefore substantively unconscionable. Id. at

Although the express warranty in question seeked to limit the manufacturer's liability to replacement of parts, disclaiming all other warranties, the conflicting interests of the parties must be evaluated, based on social policy.

E. Buyer 's Responsibility −− Insurance and Tags. Buyer acknowledges that unless prohibited by applicable law, any insurance coverage, license, tags, plates or registration maintained by Seller on the Acquired Vehicle shall be canceled within

This is a problem. It is not the distributors issuing the warranty. It is Handy Andy’s warranty given to the customers as a testament to stand behind their product. This is not a third-party warrant that is sold at say a used car lot. Again, this reflects poorly on Handy Andy and how they value their customers.

Under Section 12(4) which provides that “whether a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition or a warranty depends in each case on the construction of the contract. A stipulation may be a condition though called a warranty in the contract”. Therefore, every contract is to be assessed in the light of circumstances including intention of the parties and also terminology used in the construction of the contract.