Which of the following was the result on appeal in Webster v.Blue Ship Tea Room,Inc.,the case in the textbook in which the plaintiff sued after getting a bone caught in her throat while eating New England seafood chowder?
A)The plaintiff could recover based upon the implied warranty of merchantability.
B)The plaintiff could recover based upon the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
C)The plaintiff could recover based on an express warranty.
D)The plaintiff could not recover,because she waited too long to sue and because she was not the immediate purchaser of the fish.
E)The plaintiff could not recover,because she should have anticipated that fish bones might remain in New England seafood chowder.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

According to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,completely eliminating the possibility of bones in New England seafood chowder would require a cook to finely mince the seafood,thereby depriving the chowder of one of its hallmark characteristics,the richness of its thick,plump,delicious pieces of fish and shellfish.The court surmised that anyone eating proper New England seafood chowder would know or should know that fish bones are a distinct possibility.

Which of the Following Was the Result on Appeal in Webster