Doncouse_Jeremy_Week7

Doncouse_Jeremy_Week7 - Ansuls disclaimer is not...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Running Head: WEEK 7 ASSIGNMENT 1 Week 7 Assignment: Critical Legal Thinking Case 12.1 and 13.5 Jeremy Doncouse Mountain State University
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Running Head: WEEK 7 ASSIGNMENT 2 Critical Legal Thinking Case 12.1: Nonconforming Goods . Who wins? I’m sure that Hartz purchased the soybeans with an 80% germination rate because they would produce enough crops to be profitable. Since the shipment was verified to be well below the expected amount I would agree that Hartz has the right to cancel the contract do to a nonconforming breach of contract. That being the case, Hartz also has the right to recover its payment from Coleman. Hartz could have accepted the goods and, after the percentage of germination had been verified, could have sued Coleman for damages between the intended germination rate and the seed’s actual germination rate. So, in this case, I would have to side with the buyer; Hartz wins. Critical Thinking Case 13.5: Disclaimer of Warranty. Is Ansul’s disclaimer enforceable?
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Ansuls disclaimer is not enforceable. Ansuls product, the Automatic Sprinkler, was sold with the purpose of extinguishing fires. Under the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose clause, the fire extinguishing system should have been adequate to put out a fire and not fail in doing so. Putting out fires was the express purpose of the system and if the system fails there is a liability which should be held against the seller of the system, Ansul. Based on the given information, an express warranty is implied by the nature of the name of the system, the purpose for which it was purchased, and the reasonable expectation that the system should perform its intended purpose. Similarly, I would think that a seatbelts purpose is to restrain an occupant in the event of an accident. If the seatbelt failed, Im sure the automobile company would be sued for tort based on the express warranty built into the obvious nature of a seatbelt....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/08/2011 for the course LEGAL 297 taught by Professor Unknown during the Spring '10 term at Mountain State.

Page1 / 2

Doncouse_Jeremy_Week7 - Ansuls disclaimer is not...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online