The defendant stated that plaintiff did not give it notice of a breach of

The defendant stated that plaintiff did not give it

This preview shows page 1 out of 1 page.

were the result of defective design and construction of the Shopsmith. The defendant stated that  plaintiff did not give it notice of a breach of warranty within a reasonable time, which would  preclude liability. The court held that the injured party is generally unaware of the business practice  justifying the rule, it would simply be an unfair “booby-trap” for the unwary. The court further reasoned that even if the plaintiff’s claim for breach of warranty was  barred, the imposition of  strict liability  is appropriate in this case. From the evidence, it can be  shown (i) that the manufacturer placed a product on the market; (ii) knowing that it is to be used  without inspection for defects; (iii) that proved to have a defect and (iv) that caused an injury. To  establish liability, the court said it was enough that the plaintiff was injured while using the  Shopsmith in a way it was intended to be used, as a result of a defect. Concurrences / Dissents : None Analysis : I agree with this case. I think the court correctly applied the precedent from the Henningsen case.
Image of page 1

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read the whole page?

  • Fall '14
  • Marie Boyd
  • timely notice

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes