In this case a purchaser of an electric clothes dryer brings a law suit against Whirlpool (the manufacturer of the dryer) and Sears (the seller of the dryer) for fire damages that caused the purchasers home and possessions to burn down. The purchaser sued Whirlpool for negligence in the manufacturing of the dryer, and Sears for breach of implied warranty for merchantability. The case then moved to trial, and Whirlpool and Sears both motioned for a directed verdict. The motion was granted to Whirlpool, but not to Sears. For the case against Sears, the plaintiff had to prove that there was a breach of implied warranty of merchantability. While the evidence is a little ambiguous in this case it does support a breach of implied warranty against Sears. First the plaintiff determined that the fire was caused by the dryer by bringing in two expert witnesses. A fire expert testified that the fire started directly behind the dryer. In addition, an electrical systems expert testified that the electrical system of the dryer was the cause of the fire based on two reasons. First, two electrical wires were found within the dryer to be brittle and hard, which shows that the wires were subject to heat up to 2,000 degrees. …show more content…
This was difficult as the dryer was purchased two and a half years prior to the purchase. In addition, the plaintiff had moved from Connecticut, where the dryer was originally purchased, to Springfield, Massachusetts, where the dryer was reinstalled. Despite the fact that the dryer was two and a half years old and was moved to a different location, it was determined that no work had been done on the electrical system. While it could not be definitively proved that the electrical system was untouched, the evidence and testimonies given were enough to reasonable assume that they had not been tampered with since original
(Cheeseman2013) In the National Labor Relation Board v Shop Rite Foods case some employees of Shop Rite Foods of Texas elected a worker union as a Bargaining agent for a collective bargaining agreement for over 3 months the agreement was still not settled. Then ShopRite began to notice a lot of it merchandise being damaged in the warehouse. They determined that the damage was being intentionally being caused by dissident employees as a pressure tactic to secure concessions from the company in the collective bargaining negotiations.
4. Facts: It was the time of August in 1986, when William Geringer with his family was on vacation at the Wildhorn Ranch Resort located in Teller County, Colorado. Due to some defective Paddleboating boat two of the family members (William Geringer and his minor son Jared Geringer) were drowned. Mr. Watters, a defendant, was formerly the owner of the resort, but he stated that he handed over the possession to Wildhorn Ranch Inc. “The other defendant, Les Bretzke, was a contractor with an autonomous company that endow with repair services and repair construction to the resort.” During the whole trial the main focus was on the maintainability issues of
Judicial History: The District court of Iowa granted a motion for summary judgement in favor of National By-Products, Inc. The court determined that Dale Dyer had an invalid claim to bring forth a lawsuit, thus lacking consideration to create a contract.
In the case of Kolchek suing to recover for Litisha’s injuries, she can sure under the negligence liability. Every product should be fully tested in every way possible to see if the product functions correctly and will it injure individuals. There should not have been a whole that is not covered. Like stated in our book The Legal Environment of Business, “if a manufacture fails to exercise “due care” to make a product safe, a person who is injured by the product may sue the manufacture for negligence”. Kolchek could sue the manufacture. In this case which is Great Lakes spa. Porter was just a company that was selling the product. Great Lakes spa should have taken the initiative to examine their products throughly before putting it out on the make for individuals to buy. Like in our book The Legal Environment of Business stated, “A manufacture, seller, or lesser is liable for failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product.”
In the early 1900’s the economy was changing, and the automobile industry was booming. Sears, Roebuck began as a small mail order company, and later transformed into a nationwide chain of retail department and specialty stores, which included appliances and auto service centers (Emmit, Jueck and Rosenwald, 1951). In the late 1980’s Sears began to see a drop in revenue due to similar market retailers setting up shop nationwide. This created a number of hardships for Sears. On June 11, 1992 The California Department of Consumer Affairs charged seventy-two of Sears, Roebuck’s auto repair centers with defrauding customers by performing unnecessary service and repairs (Fisher, 1992). The Department’s Automotive Repair division charged Sears repair centers with fraud, false advertising, failure to clearly state parts and labor on invoices along with making false and misleading statements a (Fisher, 1992). This case is unique because, it was the first time The Consumer Department of Affairs had targeted the statewide operations of a company (Gellene, 1992). This paper will discuss the events that led up to over forty states seeking the revocation of licenses held by Sears auto centers, along with the types of fraud committed.
In the pleadings, a complaint needs to be filed by the plaintiff with the court and the defendants. In this case, the complaint was filed for wrongful death and injunctions. The complaint was given to both companies on May 14, 1982. Then, the defendants must answer within twenty-four hours of receiving the complaint to the summon or risk losing the case by default of the court. W.R. Grace denied the allegations against them. Also, their other defenses was that the complaint didn’t state any cause of action, in the complaint the company named was misnamed, the company followed the due of care at all times and acted in “good faith,” and the claims against them are barred. The next step is the methods of discovery.
The survivors of the horrific Black Saturday fires, are suing the power company SP AusNet claiming its faulty equipment caused the disasters which lead to the death of 173 people. The lead plaintiff Ms Carol Matthews and an estimated 10,000 victims and relatives of the deceased, took the defendant SP AusNet to court for 500 million dollars in damages and personal distress.
Facts: On September 8, 2009, while 73 year old plaintiff Sandra Primrose was shopping in a Wal-Mart, tripped over a watermelon display and fell, causing her to sustain a concussion and other serious injuries. After grabbing a watermelon from the display Ms. Primrose tripped over one of the corners while returning back to her shopping cart. On the same day after her incident Ms. Primrose filed a suit for damages against Wal-Mart claiming that it was the store owner’s negligence that led to her accident. On October 15, Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.6 stating that there was a very small chance
Haltom v. Bruner & Meis, Inc., 680 N.E.2d 6, 7 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). In Chestnet v. K-Mart Corp., a security officer observed a customer place a gas-cap into her purse and exit the store without purchasing merchandise, and detained her in-store for 30 minutes. 529 N.E.2d 131, 131-2 (Ind. Ct. App 1988). Although the customer was found innocent, the court held that the store was immune from liability because this "satisfied both the spirit and the letter" of the ISDA. 529 N.E.2d at
Under what conditions might the parties to the alliance discussed in this case dissolve or end the relationship?
In the Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. case the contract should remain enforceable because the financial responsibility of the consumer should fall on the consumer alone. Williams should not have purchased more items than Williams could afford. The contract was not overly bias favoring Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., and a reasonable consumer would agree to the terms and conditions of the contract, therefore the contract was not unconscionable. The contract between Williams and Walker-Thomas Furniture should be enforceable, the defense of unconscionability is not applicable.
The manner is unreasonable when the suspect is “subjected to gratuitous and unnecessary indignities.” Wolter v. Wal-Mart Stores, 559 S.E.2d 483, 486 ( Ga. Ct. App. 2002). Embarrassment and accusations that are “abusive, opprobrious, insulting, or slanderous” are considered “gratuitous and unnecessary indignities.” Wolter, 559 S.E.2d 483, 486; Swift v. Kresge Co., 284 S.E.2d 74 ( Ga. Ct. App. 1981). Additionally, force is reasonable if it is necessary, “non-confrontational,” and not in conflict with other testimony. Brown v. Super Disc, 477 S.E.2d 839, 841 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996); Wal-Mart Stores v. Johnson, 547 S.E.2d 320 (Ga. Ct. App.2001). The time is reasonable when it is used to investigate the innocence of the accused and less than forty-five minutes. Colonial Stores v. Fishel, 288 S.E.2d 21, 23 ( Ga. Ct. App. 1981); Dixon v. S. S. Kresge, Inc, 169 S.E.2d 189 ( Ga. Ct. App. 1969).
The newly appointed district sales manager, Larry Barr, faces the problem of allocating sales quotas among his various sales representatives. This decision will affect everyone's earnings including his own. This problem is compounded by the fact that different territories have, for a variety of reasons, different potentials. In addition, the territory that is known to be the toughest will soon require a new sales rep.
When we purchase a vehicle from any dealership, we have a warranty that our vehicle is in perfect working conditions. If we face a problem in our car, it is the dealerships’ obligation to provide a solution because it is under their warranty period. Hyundai Motors America should have given the proper solution for all the plaintiffs’ vehicles because they are under its responsibility to give a good product. The judge from this case, Kenneth M. Karas, took the final decision that the demand was granted to the plaintiffs for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and declaratory judgment claims. However, the judge denied the motion to the plaintiffs regarding express warranty and other claims. From what I understood the judge did not granted the plaintiffs for the demand about the warranty in their cars. I do not share the same decision. In my opinion, Hyundai Motors America failed to provide a warranty in their vehicles because their brake systems were defected. I might also think that it is not the fault of Hyundai Motors America, but instead of the vehicles’ manufactures because they are responsible for the conditions they deliver their vehicles. However, Hyundai Motors America have also tools and machines that they can test their vehicles, and if they find something wrong, they can contact the manufactures before selling them to the public. HMA sold vehicles with a defective brake system, so they have to honor its warranty and provide a solution to this problem because this company guarantees that its vehicles were in excellent
A stakeholder’s morals and issues rotate around the connections that they have with their Shareholders. In this case study the stakeholder Wal-Mart Inc. had been demonstrating discriminatory actions toward certain shareholders such as their female employees. (Ferrell, Fraedrich & Ferrell, 2013). For instance, take the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case. This case included a group of women that sued their company on the basis of discrimination. The discrimination consisted of the way they treated women when it came to their pay, promotions, and disabilities. Led by plaintiff Betty Dukes, they alleged gender discrimination in standard policies that had affected everybody. Initially, the district court decided to certify a class action suit as the