CASE 103 Savage Arms,Inc

CASE 10.3 Savage Arms,Inc.v.Western Auto Supply Co.(2001) addressed the issue of whether a company be held liable for personal injury caused by a defect in the product purchased as assets as part of another company.How did the court rule?

A) The case was remanded for a determination of whether the acquisition of assets met the requirements for either the "mere continuation" or "continuity of enterprise" theory of successor liability.
B) The court ruled that the sale of assets precluded indemnification on the part of Western Auto Supply Co.
C) The court ruled that permitting successor liability under the "continuity of enterprise" exception would discourage large-scale transfers and allowed Western Auto to recover from Savage Arms.
D) The court threw out the earlier judgment for the original plaintiff's suit for recovery based on reasonable use of the rifle and assumption of risks.