Under The Provisions Of The Uniform Act 41-3-2-314

According to section 26 of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic.), the result of a successful plea of contributory negligence will be an apportionment of damages. So, if a defendant is a negligent without any contributory negligence by the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive 100 per cent of the damage, but if the plaintiff is held to be contributory negligent to the extent of 40 per cent, then the plaintiff will only receive 60 per cent of the damage. (FoBL, 2005, p84) For instance, the case of Liftronic Pty Ltd v. Unver[10], the defendant (Liftronic Pty Ltd) was found liable in negligence but Unver’s damages were reduced by 60 per cent due to his contributory negligence.

UNDER ____, FAULT IS APPORTIONED; WHERE THE PLAINTIFF IS NEGLIGENT AS WELL AS THE DEFENDANT, THE PLAINTIFF'S AWARD IS REDUCED BY THE PLAINTIFF'S PERCENTAGE OF FAULT.

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

39. Under the doctrine of ________, the plaintiff may only recover the proportionate amount of damages attributable to the defendant’s negligence

There is no way of knowing if the jury understands the case, as there is no reason given as to why they gave a certain verdict.

In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their

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

b. Under some circumstances, even if the time for performance of the contract has expired.

Negligence under general action is the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a duty, a breach in that duty, causation, and damages in that duty. However, Mississippi is known as a Comparative negligence state. Under MS Law §52:68 which states; In all actions hereafter brought for personal injuries, or where such injuries have resulted in death, or for injury to property, the fact that the person injured,

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

According to the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) “good faith” is the belief that those involved in a contract will act honestly and fairly. That is saying that those entering a contract will act in and honest and fair manner in regards to the contracts they are entering. The obligations of good faith are part of every contract under the UCC. They act as the framework for the parties entering a contract. An example of good faith is car insurance. A person pays monthly for car insurance with the understanding that their insurance company will cover a certain amount in damages if the car is involved in an accident. If after the car is involved in an accident they insurance company does not pay the amount agreed to for the damages they have not acted

I have located the following cases and statues that I believe can be used as Affirmative Defenses for our client, Anheuser-Bush in the case of Justin King. Further, I believe the statute of limitation has expired for filing this auto accident claim for negligence, the Plaintiff is more than 50% negligent in his own injuries, therefore, modified comparative negligence, further, the plaintiff failed to wear protective headgear as is required in his resident state of Missouri.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

4.What are some potential legal implications in the case? What should the utility do to rectify any wrongs in this situation?

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.