Please boost your Plan to download papers
Business Law: argument as defendant
Pages 2 (502 words)
Sarah is legally wronged on a number of counts, but not under breach of express warranties of fitness and merchantability; she is the victim in this scenario according to tort law and the theories of negligence or the implied fitness and merchantability of the pot-hole truck fitted without a back-up alarm…
If ACME had sold its truck directly to the City of Albany this scenario may be altered, however the point being that ACME merely installed the base components and these future use in a busy urban environment where a back-up alarm becomes more necessary to avoid injury, is not ACME's responsibility.
Similarly, Keefer Motors, as the distributor of the generic truck has not entered into any contract, implicit or explicit, concerning the intended use of the pot-hole truck. Following a hard winter in New York, the Keefer Motors contract with the City of Albany, has no relevance to the events that led to Sarah's injury whilst working as an employee in New York. If Keefer Motors had not sold the truck unchanged to the City of Albany but had changed the truck, the City of Albany might become less negligent because at that stage the truck's intended use as a pot-hole truck might be nearing criminal liability under strict liability law. ...
Not exactly what you need?