bus law

Destiny2010

bus_225_case_study.docx

Overview

Product Liability refers to the liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacturing of any product for damages caused by that product. It grew out of tort law and relies on basic tort theories. A product liability action can be based on negligence, breach of warranty, or strict product liability.

The law of products liability is found mainly in common law (state judge-made law) and in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). In order to obtain uniformity among state laws, especially as it applies to sales contracts, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute drafted a set of commercial laws applicable to all states. This effort was called the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

It is important for business managers to understand the UCC. The UCC covers any contract or agreement for sale of goods - leases, gifts, purchases - all sales transactions between a buyer and a seller. This includes banking transactions and transfers, bank notes, securities exchanges, bulk storage of goods and shipments and transportation of goods.

Article 2 of the UCC deals with the sales of goods and it has been adopted by most states. The most important product liability sections (of the UCC) are the implied and express warranties of merchantability in the sales of goods. Article 2 deals with governing the sale of goods in all states except Louisiana. To be considered a good, an item must be tangible or have "physical existence" personal property. Your computer is a good; your car or your boat is a good. The purpose of the UCC is to try to standardize (or make uniform) transactions and sales agreements between our 50 states and the District of Columbia. Land is considered Real Property, not personal property so it is not a good. (The UCC does NOT cover contracts for real estate or services.)

Assignment

Read Case 13-2, Williams vs. Braum Ice Cream Store, Inc., located in your textbook in Chapter 13 on pages 354-355. In this case, the court set forth the two tests used in various jurisdictions to decide whether a breach of warranty of merchantability exists. The court explained both the foreign-natural test and reasonable expectations test. The case arose after the plaintiff broke a tooth on a cherry pit that was in cherry-pecan ice cream.

Read this case carefully, and then respond to the questions posed below.

1.Summarize the relevant facts of the case.

2.What is the conclusion?

3.What is the fundamental difference between the natures of the two tests discussed in this case?

4.Which of the two tests is more likely to yield ambiguous reasoning when applied?

Guidelines

1.Be sure that you craft your answer in at least one well-developed paragraph for each question.

2.Be sure to explain and support your opinions and positions. (You must justify your responses).

3.Proofread your work to ensure there are no spelling, grammar, or sentence structure errors.

4.If you use another resource (optional), ensure you properly cite it using APA format.

5.Apply your critical thinking skills.