Case summary:A year after person D bought a brand-new F-350 pickup truck from the company F, it spontaneously caught fire. Although no other property was damaged and nobody got injured, the truck demolished. The person D filed a case against the company F for the recovery of the cost of the truck in the Nebraska state court.
To find: Acceptance of the claim made by person D.
Case summary:A year after the person D bought a brand-new F-350 pickup truck from the company F, it spontaneously caught fire. Although no other property was damaged and nobody got injured, the truck demolished. The person D filed a case against the company F for the recovery of the cost of the truck in the Nebraska state court.
To find: Any basis on which the person D can recover damages.
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Chapter 7 Solutions
Bundle: The Legal Environment Of Business: Text And Cases, 10th + Mindtap Business Law, 1 Term (6 Months) Printed Access Card
- Brenda Brandt was admitted to Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center (Health Center) to receive treatment for urinary incontinence. During the course of an operation, the doctor surgically implanted a ProteGen Sling (sling) in Brandt. Subsequently, the manufacturer of the sling, Boston Scientific Corporation, issued a recall of the sling because it was causing medical complications in some patients. Brandt suffered serious complications and had the sling surgically removed. Brandt sued Boston Scientific Corporation and Health Center for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability included in Article 2 (Sales) of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Health Center filed a motion with the court to have the case against it dismissed. Health Center argued that it was a provider of services and not a merchant that sold goods, and because the UCC (Sales) applies to the sale of goods, Health Center was not subject to the UCC. Health Center proved that Brandt’s bill was $11,174.50 total charge…arrow_forwardDeborah McCullough bought a new car from Bill Swad Chrysler, Inc. The car was protected by both a limited warranty and an extended warranty. McCullough immediately encountered problems with the automobile’s brakes, transmission, and air conditioning and discovered a number of cosmetic defects as well. She returned the car to Swad for repairs, but Swad did not fix the brakes properly or perform any of the cosmetic work. Moreover, new problems appeared with respect to the car’s steering mechanism. McCullough returned the car twice more for repairs, but on each occasion, old problems persisted and new ones emerged. After the engine abruptly shut off on a short trip away from home and the brakes again failed on a more extensive excursion, McCullough presented Swad with a list of thirty-two of the car’s defects and demanded their correction. When Swad failed to remedy more than a few of the problems, McCullough wrote a letter to Swad calling for rescission of the purchase agreement and a…arrow_forwardBusiness Tort of Negligence Dewayne, a driver for Speedy Delivery Company, leaves the truck's motor running in neutral and carelessly forgets to set the parking brake while making a delivery. The truck rolls and crashes into a nearby gas station pump, igniting a fire that spreads quickly to a construction site a block away. A burned wall collapses onto a crane, which falls on Fazio, a bystander, and injures him. What must Fazio show to recover damages from Speedy Delivery? If you are the attorney for Speedy Delivery what would be your best defense argument? Your paper should be between 500-750 words, with at least two cited external resources. View your assignment rubric. ROLK LOVEarrow_forward
- Warranty and strict liability represent two causes of action, often relied upon by plaintiffs who pursue recovery in a product liability case. Describe the two legal theories by making reference to the elements that need be proven; the obstacles with which a plaintiff may be confronted; the recoveries that be sought; and finally, the nature of the cause of action; hint from what discipline of law does each theory arisearrow_forwardSherman is a delivery person for Ashley Furniture. One day, after delivering a chair he stopped at a fast-food restaurant to get a sandwich at the drive-through window. As he was leaving the parking lot, he accidentally hit the rear of Stan's car. Discuss the possible liability of Ashley Furniture for Sherman's accident. Would there be any difference in the potential liability of Ashley Furniture if Sherman had the accident after driving 30 miles away to visit a friend?arrow_forwardUsing the IRAC model to answer the question. Jim and Jane got married last Sunday. The next day they travelled to Extended Stay Hotel in Miami for their honeymoon. They arrived at the Hotel, checked in and proceeded to their room. At the back of the front door in their room was a notice excluding liability, which read that “ Extended Stay will not be responsible for articles lost or stolen, unless it is logged at the front desk for safe custody.” However, this exclusion clause could only be seen after the door is closed as well as, the actual notice was small and colored in black, with a white background. Regrettably, with all the excitement of their honeymoon, both Jim and Jane did not even notice the exclusion clause at the back of the door. One day when they were out shopping, someone came into their room and stole Jim’s laptop.…arrow_forward
- Artist James Daugherty painted six murals on the walls of the public high school in Stamford, Connecticut. Many years later, the city began to restore its high school. The architect and school officials agreed that the Daugherty murals should be preserved. They arranged for the construction workers to remove the murals to prevent harm. By accident, the workers rolled them up and placed them near the trash dumpsters for disposal. A student found the murals and took them home, and later notified the federal government’s General Services Administration (GSA) of his find. The GSA arranged to transport the murals to an art restorer, named Hiram Hoelzer, for storage and eventual restoration, when funds could be arranged. Over 19 years went by before anyone notified the Stamford School system where the murals were. In the meantime, neither the GSA nor anyone else paid Hoelzer for the storage or restoration. By 1989 the murals were valued at $1.25 million by Sotheby’s, an art auction house.…arrow_forwardZucker purchased a mobile phone that included LookUP’s software, a database product containing information from 3,000 telephone directories. Every mobile phone sold with the LookUP software was wrapped in plastic shrinkwrap and prominently featured text notifying buyers that an enclosed license restricted use of the LookUP software product. After removing the cellophane cover and opening the mobile phone box, buyers could access the printed LookUP license. Moreover, consumers could not use the LookUP software product without first accepting the license posted on the screen. This license prohibited buyers from using the database commercially. Zucker, a college student, bought a mobile phone with LookUP software and then resold the database’s information on the internet to make some extra money for tuition. LookUP sued Zucker, who argued that the license did not apply to him because he never agreed to it. Zucker claimed the phone he purchased was not wrapped in plastic and was presented…arrow_forwardThelma purchased a used truck from Hall that had been manufactured by International Harvester. To work on the truck engine, Thelma had to have the cab of the truck raised. When it was so raised, the cab fell unexpectedly and fatally injured Thelma. Suit was brought for her wrongful death against Hall and International Harvester. The suit was based on theories of negligence, strict tort liability, and breach of warranty. The defense was raised that there was no liability because the sale to Thelma had been made “as is” and the truck was a used truck. Were these defenses valid?arrow_forward
- John Campbell, an employee of Manhattan Construction Company, claims to have injured his back as a result of a fall while repairing the roof at one of the Eastview apartment buildings. He filed a lawsuit against Doug Reynolds, the owner of Eastview Apartments, asking for damages of $1,500,000. John claims that the roof had rotten sections and that his fall could have been prevented if Mr. Reynolds had told Manhattan Construction about the problem. Mr. Reynolds notified his insurance company, Allied Insurance, of the lawsuit. Allied must defend Mr. Reynolds and decide what action to take regarding the lawsuit.Some depositions and a series of discussions took place between both sides. As a result, John Campbell offered to accept a settlement of $750,000. Thus, one option is for Allied to pay John $750,000 to settle the claim. Allied is also considering making John a counteroffer of $400,000 in the hope that he will accept a lesser amount to avoid the time and cost of going to trial.…arrow_forwardIn Snyder V. Phelps, the Supreme Court held the first amendment shields Westboro from any tort liability arising from the picketing at the funeral of Mr. Snyder's son. True Falsearrow_forwardAnswer the questions below related to the negligence case. Thank you.arrow_forward
- BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage LearningEssentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage LearningAccounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
- International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education