Question 1

Which of the following refers to a direct contractual relation?

Accepted Answer

Privity of contract exists when there is a direct contractual relation.

Question 2

In the case in the text,Wilke v.Woodhouse Ford,Inc. ,the court held that:

Accepted Answer

The court upheld an implied warranty disclaimer and declined to hold that the disclaimer violated public policy even though one of the plaintiffs suffered personal injury.The court emphasized,however,that the implied warranty disclaimer would not have protected the defendant against possible liability for negligent failure to inspect the van before selling it to the plaintiffs.

Question 3

Under privity statutes adopted by some states, which of the following is not considered when determining whether a plaintiff can recover outside privity in warranty cases?

Accepted Answer

Some states have adopted privity statutes that differ from section 2-318 and depart from the reasonable-to-expect test.

Question 4

Lazur Corp.entered into a contract with Baker Suppliers,Inc.to purchase a used word processor from Baker.Lazur was engaged in the business of selling new and used word processors to the general public.The contract required Baker to ship the goods to Lazur by common carrier pursuant to the following provision in the contract: "FOB - Baker Suppliers,Inc.loading dock." Baker also represented in the contract that the word processor had been used for only 10 hours by its previous owner.The contract included the provision that the word processor was being sold "as is" and this provision was in larger and different type style than the remainder of the contract.With regard to the contract between Lazur and Baker:

Accepted Answer

According to UCC section 2-316(3) (a),sellers may disclaim either implied warranty by using such terms as "with all faults," "as is," and "as they stand." Some courts have held that these terms must be conspicuous to be effective as disclaimers.

Question 5

In the case in the text,Bissinger v.New Country Buffet,what was one reason why the intermediate court held that the trial court's decision to grant the suppliers' motion for summary judgment was proper?

Accepted Answer

One of the reasons why the court found in favor of the suppliers was because they had no ability to directly warn customers of restaurants that bought oysters from them,they could not be held to have breached a duty to warn the eventual consumer of its products.

Question 6

Under the Magnuson-Moss Act,if a seller gives a consumer a full warranty on consumer goods whose price exceeds $10,the seller:

Accepted Answer

The Magnuson-Moss Act limits a seller's ability to disclaim implied warranties.If a seller gives a consumer a full warranty on consumer goods whose price exceeds $10,the seller may not disclaim,modify,or limit the duration of any implied warranty.If a limited warranty is given,the seller may not disclaim or modify any implied warranty but may limit its duration to the duration of the limited warranty if this is done conspicuously and if the limitation is not unconscionable.

Question 7

In Moss v.Batesville Casket Co. ,the case in the text,what did the court hold?

Accepted Answer

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment,finding that the seller did not breach the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

Question 8

A disclaimer attempts to eliminate ________;a remedy limitation attempts to block ________.

Accepted Answer

A product liability disclaimer is a clause in the sales contract whereby the seller attempts to eliminate liability it might otherwise have under the theories of recovery.A remedy limitation is a clause attempting to block recovery of certain damages.

Question 9

A defective product moves ________ when it affects members of the buyer's family,guests in her home,and even bystanders.If the buyer or one of these parties suffers loss because of the defect in the component parts,she may recover in a negligence case against the manufacturer.

Accepted Answer

A defective product moves horizontally when it affects members of the buyer's family,guests in her home,and even bystanders.If the buyer or one of these parties suffers loss because of the defect in the component parts,she may recover in a negligence case against the manufacturer.

Question 10

Adam decides to eat food despite knowing that it is adulterated and brags about it to Dee.Later,Adam falls sick from infection.Adam sues the supplier of the said food for injury suffered by him.The defense which can be taken by the food supplier is:

Accepted Answer

Assumption of risk is the plaintiff's voluntary consent to a known danger.It can occur anytime the plaintiff willingly exposes herself to a known product hazard,for example,by consuming obviously adulterated food.

Question 11

Which of the following is not an example of consequential damages?

Accepted Answer

Consequential damages include personal injury,property damage (harm to the plaintiff's property other than the product at issue),and indirect economic loss (e.g. ,lost profits or diminished business reputation)resulting from a product defect.Consequential damages also include noneconomic loss.

Question 12

John buys a machine for $10,000 under a contract that excludes consequential damages and limits the buyer's remedies to repair and replacement of defective parts.John later discovers that the machine is not working properly.Under these circumstances if the remedy of limitation is enforceable,to what extent will John be successful?

Accepted Answer

Remedy limitations work mostly to block any consequential damages.Hence,John cannot claim any consequential damages and must be satisfied with having the machine either repaired or replaced.

Question 13

________ is the plaintiff's voluntary consent to a known danger.

Accepted Answer

Assumption of risk is the plaintiff's voluntary consent to a known danger.It can occur anytime the plaintiff willingly exposes herself to a known product hazard-for example,by consuming obviously adulterated food.As with product misuse,assumption of risk ordinarily has been a defense in warranty,negligence,and strict liability cases.

Question 14

The case in the text,Giddings & Lewis,Inc.v.Industrial Risk Insurers,is an example of how:

Accepted Answer

This case demonstrates the type of harm experienced by the plaintiff can be a factor in the determination of whether the case can proceed on a tort theory.

Question 15

In the case in the text,Branham v.Ford Motor Co. ,the court stated that the plaintiff was required to prove three things at trial for his product liability design defect action.Which of the following is not one of the three requirements?

Accepted Answer

The court held that the plaintiff must present evidence of a reasonable alternative design.The plaintiff will be required to point to a design flaw in the product and show how his alternative design would have prevented the product from being unreasonably dangerous.

Question 16

In Royal Indemnity Co.v.Tyco Fire Products,LP,the case in the text,why did the high court of Virginia affirm the trial court's judgment?

Accepted Answer

The court affirmed,holding that Tyco did not provide an express warranty of future performance for an indefinite period of time.

Question 17

Jason sold Sally a car manufactured by ABC Corp.After driving the car for a couple hours,Sally found that the brakes did not function properly making it extremely difficult for her to control the car.When she finally reached home,she called Jason demanding her money back.Jason claimed that she should call ABC Corp. ,who was the manufacturer.According to Jason,he was simply selling the car.Which of the following defenses is Jason using to save himself?

Accepted Answer

Since defective pieces move through long chains of distribution before reaching the person they harm,many may claim to not be directly responsible for the defective piece sold.Here,Jason puts the entire blame on the car manufacturer.This is called the no-privity defense.

Question 18

As demonstrated by the case in the text,Holiday Motor Corp.v.Walters,not all courts recognize the crashworthiness doctrine.However,courts that do recognize this doctrine must determine whether a manufacturer:

Accepted Answer

As a specialized application of the due care standard,the crashworthiness doctrine recognizes that foreseeable harm-causing scenarios require relevant and reasonable steps on the part of the manufacturer.

Question 19

In a chain of distribution involving defective component parts,the parts may move ________ from their manufacturer to the manufacturer of a product in which those parts are used,and then to a wholesaler and a retailer before reaching the eventual buyer.

Accepted Answer

In a chain of distribution involving defective component parts,the parts may move vertically from their manufacturer to the manufacturer of a product in which those parts are used,and then to a wholesaler and a retailer before reaching the eventual buyer.

Question 20

Which of the following requires that certain classes of lawsuits be brought within defined limits of time after the right to begin them accrued or the right to bring the lawsuit is lost?

Accepted Answer

Statute of limitations is a statute that requires certain classes of lawsuits be brought within defined limits of time after the right to begin them accrued or the right to bring the lawsuit is lost.

Quiz 20: Product Liability