Questions On Legal Analyses : Peter Is A Regular Customer At Briarwood Fitness Center Essay

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.

I can’t show exactly where in the U.C.C. it says this, but that’s the general feeling I got from reading the U.C.C. 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 plaintiff bought a baseball bat from the defendant and the baseball bat turned out to be broken because, 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 UCC 2-314. Industria De Calcados Martini Ltda. v. Maxwell Shoe Co., 36 Mass. App. Ct. 268 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994) Also, there’s a case that expounded upon this issue and told us that a baseball bat can’t crack when it’s used normally. Otherwise, the store has to give back the money to the plaintiff. Dudzik v. Klein's All Sports, 158 Misc. 2d 72 (N.Y. J. Ct. 1993). The information that can be clearly drawn from these cases is if someone buys a baseball bat, it must be in the condition that was represented to the heretofore named parties. At least, the bat must be in sufficient marketable condition so that the implied warranty owing from the party of the first part to the party of the second part must be sustained. Also, as if those cases weren’t enough, the UCC 2-314 demands that goods must be in good condition when they are

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.

and injuring the Plaintiff with no warning, breaching the reasonably established agreement how the Plaintiff was to help only with Transporting of said Household items, with the Plaintiff’s Truck and Trailer only. Defendant Benny Hans Sorensen’s Negligent instructions and the Defendant Gaden Griffin’s Negligent Actions caused the Plaintiff’s Permanent Damages, adding injury to the Plaintiff’s existing Disability, with no care and lack of consideration of Plaintiff’s injury, especially immediately after the Plaintiff’s injury while the Plaintiff was moaning and complaining about how heavy the said 330 lbs Appliance was and walking in circles and holding his back, neck, and shoulder. The Defendants’ gross actions and negligent actions

Plaintiff does not need assistance from the Defendant for suit monies nor does the Defendant have the ability to pay for her attorney.

The issue is whether Lion’s Paint Shop owes any legal duty of care to Mr. Newhouse to ensure his safety from unreasonable risk of harm caused by dangerous conditions while on the premises of the paint store. In order to provide adequate information to support Mr. Newhouse’s case, we must determine whether Mr. Newhouse have alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for fault, gross negligence, or willful and wanton misconduct on the store’s part to recover damages for his injuries as a result of his slip and fall incident on Lion’s Paint Store premises. Under Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.6304(8), when a breach of legal duty exists, the defendant is at “fault” and can be liable for negligence under duty of care based upon the status of the claimant

Senco is liable to Larkin for strict liability because of the defect that SN325 nail gun double fired causing Larkin’s injuries. Even though Larkin did not purchased the nail gun Seco is still liable to any person how uses the nail gun including bystanders who may become injured due to the malfunction of the product. Seco did not do enough testing and research to realize that the nail gun can potentially double fire causing the nail gun to recoil and causing damages or injury to any person using it or bystanders. Strict liability is a “doctrine that makes manufactures, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and others in the chain of distribution of a defective product liable for the damages caused by the defect, irrespective of fault” (Cheeseman

“Trader Joe’s has designed jobs to increase job satisfaction by showing appreciation in providing more benefits to their employees than other chain grocers. They provide starting benefits including medical, dental, and vision insurance, company-paid retirement, paid vacation, and a 10% employee discount, Pg. w-100.” Traders Joes also recruits people with certain personality traits that the company wants in their stores. They are able to enrich their employees with knowledge of their products that they are selling, as well as inducing customer involvements. As a result, they are able to have higher job performance because they are able to train and

The boys disregarded vigilance and caution when they directly disregarded the signs of warning. The defendants are not liable for the injury sustained by the plaintiff. Caution signs serve a purpose to inform us of “probable danger” and when danger is foreseen we must avoid such danger. If you ignore such signs of warning then you are negligent and liable for the consequences of such actions. We cannot live in a society where signs of caution and warning mean nothing.

The plaintiff’s cause of action in this case would be the failure of Porsche to properly supply the 2005 Carrera GT with proper crash preventative measures and passenger safety features to protect the passengers of the car in the foreseeable event of a car crash. As a whole the case would be classified as alleged product liability negligence against Porsche, for failing to provide an electronic stability control system to protect against swerving to prevent crashes in a car that is advertised as a street legal race car. Also for providing side door reinforcements that fall below mass produced vehicles standards due to lack of proper welds and the poor strength of the material used, therefore inadequate to ensure safety of car passenger in the event of a crash. Lastly, for allowing a faulty gas line to be implemented in their

The intentional or accidental release of a hazardous material is responsible for major injury or fatality

When companies add their product to the marketplace they brand and label their products so as to provide an accurate and truthful description, only making substantiated claims and statements capable of ensuring the products results and safety of consumers who use it. In the recall of the Fisher-Price Cradle ‘n Swings, the product poses serious risk for injury due to falling when seat pegs are not fully engaged. According to Seaquist (2102), duty of care means adhering to a standard behavior expected of a reasonable person in a given situation. If Fisher-Price’s cradle swing models causes serious harm to consumers, then the company could be sued. However, once Fisher-Price received consumer complaint reports that their product could cause

There can be a number of reasons for a company to go public or private. There are benefits, as well as disadvantages that go along with either course of action (Exhibit 1 for details). When firms decide to go private, they are no longer listed on any stock exchange market. The pressure of keeping accounting regularity and reporting to the public is no longer an issue. Instead, firms can be more flexible to reorganize the business profile as well as the management team. In many cases, shareholders and board members receive very rewarding financial benefits from this transaction. However, in some situations, public firms do not have a choice in the matter, as is the case in a “hostile takeover”.

Assume that one of Philip’s clients is a married man, aged 36 with two young children, who wishes to reallocate a significant portion of his retirement funds that are currently invested in certificates of deposit. Philip recommends a growth investment, and he identifies the three representative possibilities shown in Table A.

a) Adam bought slimming pills from A1 for himself and on behalf of his friend, Samantha. Samantha was diagnosed with kidney failure after a month of consuming the pills. Those pills were advertised by A1 saying that they are made up from pure natural products and also they have been manufactured by their factory in Switzerland. Unfortunately, Adam finds out that those pills were created in Nigeria and contained melamine and unusual harmful elements. It was clear that he had not known if the exclusion clause as he only knew of it when his lawyer pointed it out to him. He wants to return those pills and claim damages for breach of contract.