BS Law Ex II, Q 1 - of the burglary and the cell phone was...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
James Tilley BAA 3210 BS Law Exam II, Q 1 If Barbara were to take the makers of Radartel cellular phones to court she should argue that the batteries did not last as promised by the manufactures. This falls under the Implied Warranty of Merchantability. When Barbara returned to the cell phone store they replaced it because it was defective. This replacement provides proof in court of a defective product. This alone allows her to file a lawsuit against the company that would pay damages of anything stolen during the burglary and any medical bill that occurred from the attack. Another area that Barbara can argue is a Breech of Warranty. The battery that came with the phone died shortly after she purchased the phone. The addition
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: of the burglary and the cell phone was her primary source of communication. She should have no problem show that the battery was defective and a breach of warranty causing the company to pay consequential damages. The Radartel cell phone company could argue the fact that the defect was within the battery itself and not within the phone. There should have been a limited warranty explaining that the battery was not covered by Radartel cellular company. I believe the outcome would be that the company that manufactured the battery would pay for the consequential damages to Barbara’s property....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online