This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Ansul’s disclaimer is not enforceable. Ansul’s 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 seatbelt’s purpose is to restrain an occupant in the event of an accident. If the seatbelt failed, I’m 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
- Spring '10
- Contract Law, Thought, Critical Legal Thinking, germination rate, Hartz, Legal Thinking Case