Case Study II -- Rey writter only
Case Study 1
Erica contracted to purchase a giant 72” television from Hometown Electronics, a large retailer for appliances and electronics. Hometown agreed to deliver the television to Erica’s home. On the way to Erica’s house, the delivery truck, subcontracted by Hometown, was hit by another truck and all of the contents were destroyed. Who bears the risk of loss? What is the status of the contract? What if there is no visible damage to the television when it is delivered to Erica? Please be sure to answer thoroughly and completely, citing scholarly sources to support your response.
Case Study 2
Wendy was addicted to her morning cup of coffee. She had one cup before leaving the house and usually picked up another cup from the coffee shop on her way to the office. This morning, the line at the coffee shop was too long; therefore, Wendy decided to get a cup of coffee from the vending machine at work. The coffee was so hot that Wendy dropped it all over herself and was badly burned. Wendy filed suit against the vending company, the manufacturer of the vending machine, the owner of the building and the distributor of the coffee. What rights does Wendy have? Explain Wendy’s case against each party and possible defenses by each defendant.
Case Study 3
Marilyn and her husband Brandon were vacationing in Las Vegas with their 15 year old daughter Louise and 2 year old son Nathan. The hot water supply to their hotel room was heated by a Swirlmore water heater, which had a temperature control device on its exterior, manufactured by Welson Devices (Welson) and sold to Swirlmore. Matt, the maintenance supervisor at the hotel purchased and installed the water heaters. The water heaters were not accessible to the guests.
Extensive warnings were provided on the water heater itself and in the manual given to Matt at the time of his purchase. The warning on the water heater read "CAUTION: Hot water increases the risk of scald injury." The heater itself contained a picture of hot water coming from a faucet with the words "DANGER" printed above it. In addition, the water heater had a statement on it:
Warning! Water temperature over 110°F can cause severe burns instantly or death from scalds. Children, disabled, and elderly are at highest risk of being scalded. Feel water temperature before bathing or showering. Temperature limiting valves are available, see manual.
A similar phrase appears in the Swirlmore manual.
On August 1, 2012, 2 year old Nathan was being bathed by his 15-year sister, Louise. When her cell phone rang, Louise left Nathan alone in the bathtub. No one else was in the hotel room with the children and Louise left the water running. Nathan was scalded by the water from the tap. Nathan and his mother brought suit against Swirlmore, Welson, Matt and the hotel alleging defects in the design of the water heater and hotel’s failure to warn her about the heater’s dangers.
Can Nathan and his mother prevail in a product liability lawsuit against Swirlmore, Welson, the hotel or Matt? Explain why or why not for each party.
|Assignment 2 Grading Criteria||
|Answered one scenario, analyzed the facts and provided well-reasoned answers that reflect an understanding of course material. Supported the response with appropriate cases, laws and other relevant examples.||
|Answered a second scenario, analyzed the facts and provided well-reasoned answers that reflect an understanding of course material. Supported the response with appropriate cases, laws and other relevant examples.||
|Used correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and professional vocabulary.||
|Presented the paper in APA format and properly cited sources using APA.||
Case Study II
body preview (3 words)
Case Study II
file1.doc preview (694 words)
Running xxxxx xxx LAW xxx xxxx \* MERGEFORMAT �4�
xxxxxxxxxx product xxxxxxxxx is legal term xxxx xx xxxxxxxxx to accountability of x particular xxxxx in xxx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xx a xxxxxxxxx or xxxxxxx xx xxxx xx xxx xxxxxxx brought about xx the product xxxxxxx xxxxxx The xxxx xx xxxxx xxx xxx accident that xxxxxxx her xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx being transported xx similar to this legal statute. xxxxxxx xx xxx case more xxxxxxx it can xx noted that the hired xxxxxxx xxx xxx xxx xxxxxx the purchased xxxxxxx xx the xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxx means that any damage that xxxxx to xxx good theirs to blame.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx there are possible counter arguments xxxxxxxxx the case xxx xxx party that xxxxxxxx bears the xxxx xx loss. xxxxxxxxx to the law on product xxxxxxxxxx xx is quoted that xxxx a claim xxx only xx based on xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxxxx and xxxxxx liability. This point xx view xxx xx used xx stating the xxxx xx loss ought xx be xxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxx xx xxxxx xx argued that xxx xxxxxxx xxx not xx any xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx xx xxx xxxxxxx’s direct xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx this xxxx xx a fallacious
- - - more text follows - - -
Try it before you buy it