MGMT 0320
Cameron W. Bourque
Commercial Law & Ethics Chapter 25: Questions 1, 3, 5, 7 + CPA’s
1) I would say that the plaintiff would not win the case. I say this because water heaters are
supposed to deliver hot water. Also, the company that supplies the water heaters put a significant
amount of warnings, and even warned that using hot water can result in death. Because the child
was burned as a result of the 15-year-old’s negligence, I believe that the plaintiff would lose the
case.
3) I think that the defendant would be in the wrong. Reason being, there is a certain level of
certainty that when you bite in to a chocolate covered nut, there will not be any remaining shell
residue. There should have been warnings on the wrapper or case the candy came in stating that
one needs to chew with caution. However, with the facts given, I believe that the plaintiff would
win the case.
5) According to the question, it does not appear that the model of trampoline that was purchased
came with warnings that injury may occur. As a result, I feel that Rex would possibly be able to
recover damages.
7) Because the non-warranty was stated clear and that the item was sold “as-is”, I would assume
that the court would hold for the defendant.
#1 CPA) C
#2 CPA) A
#3 CPA) B
#4 CPA) C