Assignment 3 - Deuce Bigalow v. Happy Gilmore

Assignment 3 - Deuce Bigalow v. Happy Gilmore - Deuce...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Deuce Bigalow v. Happy Gilmore Business Law II (BA265) Robert McGill 25 August 2011 Deuce Bigalow v. Happy Gilmore 1 In the scenario provided, Happy Gilmore invented a driving range for use in the backyard. It was called the Alligator. Deuce Bigalow purchased the Alligator. Deuce was hit on the head by a golf ball following a practice swing with the device. The label on the box stated in bold type COMPLETELY SAFEBALL WILL NOT HIT PLAYER . The question posed, is what legal theory can Deuce Bigalow use to seek redress and damages. There are two theories at work here. Both of them have roots in Article 2, section 7 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The first is the Implied Warranty. In some common law jurisdictions, an implied warranty is a contract law term for certain assurances that are presumed to be made in the sale of products or real property, due to the circumstances of the sale. These assurances are characterized as warranties irrespective of whether the seller has expressly promised them orally...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 11/16/2011 for the course BUSINESS BA265 taught by Professor Various during the Spring '11 term at Grantham.

Page1 / 3

Assignment 3 - Deuce Bigalow v. Happy Gilmore - Deuce...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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