Tort / Business Law Questions Chapter 24 Term Paper

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 870 words ( 3 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 0

Page 1 of 3

Tort / Business Law Questions

Chapter 24 Product Liability: Warranties and Torts

The issue in this case is whether or not Maria Gonzalez and/on behalf of Angel would recover in a lawsuit against either Morflow or Robertshaw, alleging defects in the design of the water heater and failure to warn. The law of strict liability states that one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer is subject to liability for physical harm caused to the user if the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product and it is expected to or does reach the customer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold. Failure to warn or give adequate directions involving an unreasonably dangerous product may provide grounds for strict liability, even where the product is not defective. In this case, both Morflow and Robertshaw would be potential defendants, because both are engaged in the business of selling such products. However, there is nothing in the facts to indicate that the water heater had a defective design- Angel was scalded as a result of Daniel leaving him alone with the water running. Although the water heater may be considered as an unreasonably dangerous product, plaintiffs would not be able to recover under the failure to warn. The temperature device had an adequate warning on it, and the heater itself contained a picture of hot water coming from a faucet with word "DANGER" printed above it. In addition, the water heater had an adequate warning statement on it, and a warning also appeared in the Morflow manual.

Stuck Writing Your "Tort / Business Law Questions Chapter 24" Term Paper?

View All Our Example Tort / Business Law Questions Chapter 24 Term Paper

Have A Custom Example Essay Written

Thus, plaintiffs would not be able to recover.

7. Avery was incorrect in her assumption that the exclusion of warranties made by the contract were unconscionable. Under the warranty of fitness, sellers are liable for goods found unfit for their intended purpose where the seller knows the particular purpose for which the goods are required and the buyer relies in fact on the seller's skill in supplying the goods. Liability will result under the warranty of merchantability where the goods supplied are not of fair, average quality or are not generally fit for normal use. In this case, the written contract stated that the refrigerator was sold "as is" and that the warranty of merchantability and all warranties of fitness were excluded, in large capital letter printed just above the line on which Avery signed her name. Under the law, disclaimers for warranties may serve as valid defenses, either orally or in writing, only of the word "merchantability" is used. In this case, Avery….....

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Tort Business Law Questions Chapter 24" (2005, April 17) Retrieved May 20, 2025, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/tort-business-law-questions-chapter-24-63669

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Tort Business Law Questions Chapter 24" 17 April 2005. Web.20 May. 2025. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/tort-business-law-questions-chapter-24-63669>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Tort Business Law Questions Chapter 24", 17 April 2005, Accessed.20 May. 2025,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/tort-business-law-questions-chapter-24-63669
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example