Question 1

Product liability exists if the:
A)consumer misuses the product.
B)consumer alters the product before he or she uses it.
C)product reaches the consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.
D)consumer takes the product gratuitously.

Accepted Answer

Product liability exists if the product reaches the consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. This means that if the product is defective or dangerous in its intended use, the manufacturer or seller can be held liable for any resulting injuries or damages. The other options presented do not necessarily create product liability.

Question 2

In bringing a warranty action, the buyer must prove:
A)whether the warranty was express or implied.
B)that breach of the warranty proximately caused the loss suffered.
C)reliance on the affirmations, promises, descriptions, samples, or models the seller made or used.
D)All of these.

Accepted Answer

The answer of In bringing a warranty action, the buyer...

Question 3

Mark tells Leslie that his stereo has quadraphonic speakers because he was told that when he bought it.Leslie buys the stereo, but it does not have quadraphonic speakers.Is Mark liable for breach of warranty?
A)No, because he did not know his statement was false.
B)No, because he did not promise her that the speakers were quadraphonic.
C)Yes, because the statement was false.
D)Yes, because Mark was not acting in good faith.

Accepted Answer

Mark made a false statement about the product, which constitutes breach of warranty. It does not matter if he knew it was false or not, he still made a false statement that led Leslie to purchase the product based on false information.

Question 4

Which of the following is not an express warranty?
A)Restating facts or market figures about a product
B)The opinion of an expert in a certain field regarding a product in that field
C)A statement of the product specifications
D)The seller's opinion of the value of goods

Accepted Answer

The seller's opinion of the value of goods is not an express warranty. It is considered a sales puffery or an opinion, which does not guarantee the quality or performance of the product. The other options (A, B, and C) are all examples of express warranties as they provide specific information about the product's characteristics, features, or performance.

Question 5

An obligation of the merchant-seller that the goods are reasonably fit for general purposes for which they are manufactured and sold, and the goods are of fair, average quality is known as:
A)a warranty of merchantability.
B)strict liability.
C)an express warranty.
D)the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

Accepted Answer

The obligation described in the question is known as a warranty of merchantability, which is an implied warranty that arises automatically when a merchant-seller sells goods. The warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, on the other hand, is a warranty that arises when a buyer relies on the seller's expertise to select goods that are suitable for a particular purpose. Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds manufacturers liable for harm caused by defective products, regardless of their level of fault. An express warranty is a warranty that is created by the seller's statements or actions.

Question 6

Implied warranties under the Code:
A)may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.
B)are a result of specific language in the sales contract.
C)continue the common law rule of caveat emptor.
D)are intended to protect the seller rather than the buyer.

Accepted Answer

Implied warranties under the Code may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade. This means that they are an unwritten understanding or expectation between the parties based on their prior business interactions or industry standards. They are not a result of specific language in the sales contract and are intended to protect the buyer rather than the seller. Implied warranties do not continue the common law rule of caveat emptor (buyer beware) which places the burden of inspecting and evaluating the goods on the buyer.

Question 7

Geoff's fiancée, Susan, comes to meet his parents for the weekend.On Saturday morning, while using Geoff's mother's hair dryer, the blower short-circuits sending sparks across the guest room.Susan's angora sweater and her hands are covered with tiny burns.Susan's mother is a lawyer and wants her to sue the seller of the dryer for breach of warranty.Can she?
A)No, because horizontal privity would extend only to members of the family.
B)No, because privity would require that Geoff's mother sue.
C)Yes, since she is a guest in the home of the buyer, the warranties would extend to her in most states.
D)Yes, since under the Code all reasonable users are protected from injury.

Accepted Answer

Most states extend warranties to guests in the home of the buyer, even if there is no direct contractual relationship between the guest and the seller. This is known as the "third-party beneficiary rule" and allows for guests to sue for breach of warranty.

Question 8

Alice is browsing in a commercial art gallery when she sees a painting that she likes.Roger, who is the manager of the gallery, tells her that the painting is a genuine Leroy Neiman work.Based upon that representation, Alice buys the work for $5,000.She later discovers that the painting is only a cheap copy of the original that is worth no more than $50.Roger has breached:
A)an express warranty to Alice that the painting is a Neiman work.
B)the warranty of merchantability.
C)no express warranties, because his statement was merely an opinion.
D)an express warranty, the warranty of merchantability, and the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

Accepted Answer

Roger made an express warranty to Alice that the painting is a genuine Leroy Neiman work. An express warranty is a specific promise or guarantee made by the seller about the product's quality, condition, or performance. Roger's statement was not just an opinion but a representation of fact, which turned out to be false. Therefore, he has breached an express warranty to Alice.

Question 9

Eric bought a new snowmobile from the North Pole Manufacturing Company.After buying the machine, Eric then modified the spark plugs and a few other things in order to soup it up.In February, just after a snowfall, Eric was driving the snowmobile when it tipped over, trapping him beneath it.His leg was severely burned when it lodged against one of the spark plugs.Eric now wants to sue North Pole for strict liability in tort.Eric:
A)will likely win the suit, because of the faulty design of the snowmobile.
B)will likely lose the suit, because the machine has been altered since its manufacture.
C)has assumed the risk of using the snowmobile.
D)cannot sue the manufacturer, because horizontal privity is lacking.

Accepted Answer

Eric modified the snowmobile after he purchased it, which means that the machine is no longer in the same condition as when it was manufactured by North Pole. This could potentially absolve North Pole of strict liability in tort, as they may argue that any defects or issues with the spark plugs or other components were introduced after the sale of the machine. Additionally, Eric may have assumed the risk of using the modified snowmobile, which could also weaken his case.

Question 10

Article 2A carries over the warranty provisions of Article 2 with relatively minor revision to reflect differences in:
A)style.
B)leasing terminology.
C)leasing practices.
D)All of these.

Accepted Answer

Article 2A adapts the warranty provisions of Article 2 to fit the context of leasing, which involves changes in style, terminology, and practices specific to leasing.

Question 11

A, a wholesale distributor, sells to B, a retail dealer, a set of defective tires manufactured by X, a reputable manufacturer.Both A and B believed the tires to be in perfect condition, although neither party has inspected the tires.C purchases the tires from B and is injured because the defective tires blew out.Who, if anyone, is liable to C in strict liability?
A)A, B, and X share liability to C under strict liability.
B)Only X, who manufactured the tires, has strict liability.
C)Only B, who sold the defective tires to C, has strict liability.
D)No one has strict liability in this case.

Accepted Answer

A, B, and X all have a share of liability in this case. A, as the wholesale distributor, has a duty to ensure that the products it sells are fit for their intended use. B, as the retailer, also has a duty to inspect the products before selling to ensure they are safe for use. X is responsible for the defective product. All three parties can be held strictly liable under the doctrine of strict liability. C, as the injured party, can bring a product liability claim against all three parties.

Question 12

Hubert bought heavy-duty, sharp hedge clippers to trim the hedges in his yard.In the process of using the clippers, he severely cut his hand.He is now suing the manufacturer on the basis that the clippers are unreasonably dangerous.Can he recover? Explain.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Hubert bought heavy-duty, sharp hedge clippers to...

Question 13

Greg has been in the business of selling encyclopedias for twenty years.Margaret agreed to buy a set if Greg would also bring her a bookcase for them.Greg bought one and sold it to Margaret along with the books.While shelving the books, she ran her hand over the back edge of the shelves and cut herself severely.The wood was not finished on that side and nails were protruding through the shelf.Can Margaret sue Greg under strict liability?
A)Yes, because the bookcase was in an unreasonably dangerous condition.
B)Yes, because the bookcase was defective.
C)No, because she was not a true consumer under Section 402A.
D)No, because Greg is not a seller under Section 402A.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Greg has been in the business of...

Question 14

Matt tells Ron that the snow boots he is selling offer protection for temperatures of 20° below zero.Ron orders a pair for his trip to Greenland.Upon delivery, Ron sees that the box states "will protect your feet in temperatures down to 30° below zero." The first night's temperature goes down to 27 below.Ron suffers frostbite on all of his toes.Ron then sues for breach of warranty.What is the result?
A)Breach, because the later express warranty is valid.
B)No breach, because Matt's statement was merely opinion.
C)No breach, because Matt said 20° below zero.
D)No breach, because Matt is allowed to be wrong.

Accepted Answer

The later express warranty on the box overrides Matt's previous statement, and Ron relied on the information provided on the box. The fact that Ron suffered frostbite indicates that the product did not meet the stated warranty, resulting in a breach.

Question 15

What are the essential requirements for strict product liability?

Accepted Answer

The answer of What are the essential requirements for strict...

Question 16

Kera rented a lawn mower from Scott Rentals.The mower wheel was loose when she picked it up.When she began to use the mower, the wheel fell off, causing the mower to tip over onto her foot.Under what theory can Kera hold Scott liable for her injuries?
A)Breach of warranty of merchantability
B)Breach of warranty of title
C)Strict liability in tort for a defective design
D)All of these.

Accepted Answer

Kera can hold Scott liable under the theory of breach of warranty of merchantability, as the lawn mower was not fit for its ordinary purpose due to the loose wheel.

Question 17

No implied warranty exists:
A)if it is disclaimed in any manner.
B)if it applies to hidden defects that are not apparent upon examination.
C)as to defects that an examination ought to have revealed, where the buyer examined the goods as fully as he desired or where the buyer refused to examine the goods.
D)All of these.

Accepted Answer

An implied warranty does not exist for defects that should have been discovered during an examination if the buyer had the opportunity to inspect the goods or refused to do so.

Question 18

Which Code section contains the warranty of merchantability?
A)2-205
B)2-207
C)2-312
D)2-314

Accepted Answer

The warranty of merchantability is contained in section 2-314 of the Uniform Commercial Code. This section states that a merchant who sells goods warrants that the goods are merchantable, which means they must be reasonably fit for the ordinary purpose for which they are used.

Question 19

What are the general Code requirements for a disclaimer of warranties? What specific requirements exist for a disclaimer of the warranty of merchantability and the warranty of fitness?

Accepted Answer

The answer of What are the general Code requirements for...

Question 20

Karen decided to sell her stair step exercise machine, because she wasn't using it as much as she thought she would. Her friend Lydia bought it from Karen for $100.If the first day that Lydia used the stair stepper it fell apart, injuring
Lydia's ankle:
A)Lydia can sue Karen for breach of the warranty of merchantability, because the stair stepper is not fit for its ordinary purpose.
B)Karen can sue the manufacturer for breach of the warranty of merchantability, because she was the original buyer.
C)Lydia cannot sue Karen for warranting that the stair stepper is reasonably fit for its ordinary purpose, because Karen is not a merchant.
D)Lydia cannot sue Karen, because they are not in privity of contract.

Accepted Answer

DC) Lydia cannot sue Karen for warranting that the stair stepper is reasonably fit for its ordinary purpose because Karen is not a merchant. The warranty of merchantability typically applies to sellers who are merchants of the goods sold. Since Karen is a private individual and not a merchant, this warranty does not apply.D) The concept of privity of contract does not prevent Lydia from suing Karen because privity of contract refers to the relationship between parties in a contract, and Lydia and Karen do have a contract between them (the sale of the stair stepper). However, Lydia cannot sue Karen based on the warranty of merchantability for the reason mentioned in C.

Quiz 24: Products Liability: Warranties and Strict Liability in Tort

Product liability exists if the:

In bringing a warranty action, the buyer must prove:

Mark tells Leslie that his stereo has quadraphonic speakers because he was told that when he bought it.Leslie buys the stereo, but it does not have quadraphonic speakers.Is Mark liable for breach of warranty?

Which of the following is not an express warranty?

An obligation of the merchant-seller that the goods are reasonably fit for general purposes for which they are manufactured and sold, and the goods are of fair, average quality is known as:

Implied warranties under the Code:

Article 2A carries over the warranty provisions of Article 2 with relatively minor revision to reflect differences in:

Hubert bought heavy-duty, sharp hedge clippers to trim the hedges in his yard.In the process of using the clippers, he severely cut his hand.He is now suing the manufacturer on the basis that the clippers are unreasonably dangerous.Can he recover? Explain.

What are the essential requirements for strict product liability?

Kera rented a lawn mower from Scott Rentals.The mower wheel was loose when she picked it up.When she began to use the mower, the wheel fell off, causing the mower to tip over onto her foot.Under what theory can Kera hold Scott liable for her injuries?

No implied warranty exists:

Which Code section contains the warranty of merchantability?

What are the general Code requirements for a disclaimer of warranties? What specific requirements exist for a disclaimer of the warranty of merchantability and the warranty of fitness?

Karen decided to sell her stair step exercise machine, because she wasn't using it as much as she thought she would. Her friend Lydia bought it from Karen for $100.If the first day that Lydia used the stair stepper it fell apart, injuring Lydia's ankle: