80%(5)4 out of 5 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 out of 1 page.
liable for the breach of any implied warranty.Submitted to the jury only the cause of action alleging breach of implied warranties against the retailer and the causes of action alleging negligence and breach of express warranties against the manufacturer.Jury returned a verdict for the retailer against the plaintiff and for plaintiff against the manufacturer in the amount of $65,000.Issues: Whether Plaintiff’s action based on representations contained in the brochure were barred against the manufacturer due to a failure to give timely notice?Holding (and Judgment):No. (Judgment affirmed). The court concluded that even if the plaintiffdid not give timely notice of breach of warranty to the manufacturer his cause of action based on therepresentations contained in the brochure was not barred.Rule of Law:The court stated that people injured by products with design or manufacturing defectsmay bring suit under strict liability regardless of a failure to give timely notice to the manufacturer for a breach of warranty.Reasoning:* Plaintiff introduced substantial evidence that a jury could conclude that his injuries were the result of defective design and construction of the Shopsmith. The defendant stated that