Exam 20: Warranties and Product Liability

If a seller wishes to be relieved of the responsibility for implied warranties,the sales contract must clearly provide that the parties did not intend the implied warranties to become part of the contract.

Explain the difference between the implied warranty of merchantability and the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

Syeda bought a thermos bottle from Pentagon Corp.When using it for the first time,she poured coffee into it and was adding some warm milk when it exploded,sending shards of glass into her face and injuring her right eye.Syeda testified that she had not dropped the thermos and had not abused it.She sued Pentagon,claiming,among other things,breach of warranty of merchantability.Under the Uniform Commercial Code,was the warranty of merchantability breached?

The creation of an express warranty depends on the:

Natalie injured herself while trimming the sides of her hedge with her electric lawn mower.In this case,Natalie:

Which of the following statements is true of privity of contract?

Under the Uniform Commercial Code,some of the benefits of warranties extend to persons who did not themselves purchase the particular defective goods.

Priety,a manufacturer of chairs,sold 150 chairs to Shilpa,the owner of a furniture shop.This sale was made after both the parties entered into a contract.The term of the contract read,"Seller hereby disclaims all implied warranties." Unlike the rest of the contract,this term was written in all capital letters and placed prominently in the document.In this scenario,Priety has effectively made a disclaimer of:

Which of the following is an outgrowth of strict product liability?

In liability based on negligence,_____.

Disclaimers in contracts are usually effective to shield a manufacturer or seller against liability for negligence to consumers.

Which of the following statements is true of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act?

The _____ protects the buyer in ownership of the goods bought.

Wilma locked herself in the trunk of a 1973 sedan in an attempt to learn a magic trick.After some time,she decided to get out of the trunk,but was unable to do so.She was released nine days later.She subsequently sued the manufacturer of the sedan for the psychological and physical injuries she sustained because the trunk did not have an internal release or opening mechanism that would have allowed her to escape.She alleged that the manufacturer was negligent in its design of the car because it lacked such a mechanism,and negligent because it failed to warn users that the trunk did not have such a mechanism.In this scenario,was the manufacturer of the sedan negligent for failing to warn,or failing to include a release mechanism in its design of the car?

Fungible goods are:

The basic rule of _____ is that a person owes a duty of care to avoid foreseeable injury to others.

In determining whether a product is inherently dangerous or has been defectively designed,courts look at:

A statement made by a seller regarding a product might be interpreted as either an opinion or an express warranty depending on:

If a product is inherently dangerous so that no amount of due care could make it safe,_____.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is intended to: