Analogy and Legal Reasoning
Henry paid a dog breeder $500 for a pit bull. Prior to the purchase the breeder assured him that the dog would not bite anyone in the household unless it was provoked. Henry brought the dog home, and it gradually became a member of his rowdy family. However, after 10 months, without being provoked, the dog bit his wife, causing serious injury. Henry then filed a lawsuit against the breeder claiming damages for a defective product. After filing the suit Henry discovered that his dog's male parent was vicious.
There are two controlling cases in this jurisdiction:
Carter v. Ace Electric: Carter bought an electric hairdryer from manufacturer Ace Electric. The hairdryer had a defective ground connection, and Carter suffered injury as a result of this defect. The court ruled in favor of Carter, noting that Ace knew or should have known about this defect at the time the hairdryer was made.
Baker v. Harlow Motors: Baker purchased a new car from Harlow Motors, and after 10 months the engine stopped running. During that interval Baker had made several modifications to the engine. The court ruled in favor of Harlow because Baker had modified the engine.
Construct two arguments, one supporting Henry, the other supporting the breeder.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer is Argument supporting Henry:
Henry can argue that the breeder assured him that the dog would not bite anyone in the household unless it was provoked. This assurance can be seen as a warranty or guarantee of the dog's behavior, similar to the warranty of a product's performance in the Carter v. Ace Electric case. Just as Ace Electric was held responsible for the defective hairdryer, the breeder should be held responsible for the defective dog. Additionally, Henry can argue that he did not make any modifications to the dog's behavior or upbringing, similar to the situation in Baker v. Harlow Motors where the court ruled in favor of the consumer because they had not made any modifications to the product.

Argument supporting the breeder:
The breeder can argue that Henry's dog's behavior cannot be solely attributed to the breeder, as the dog's male parent was vicious. This can be seen as a modification to the dog's genetic makeup, similar to the modifications made by Baker to the car engine in Baker v. Harlow Motors. Therefore, the breeder can argue that they should not be held responsible for the dog's behavior, as it was influenced by factors outside of their control. Additionally, the breeder can argue that Henry's family's rowdy behavior may have provoked the dog, which would absolve them of liability based on the assurance they provided to Henry.