Exam 24: Product Liability: Warranties and Torts

In most instances, the mere fact that a sale was made gives rise to a(n):

Federal law requires every product sold to have an express warranty.

A seller cannot be held liable for the breach of an express warranty if the seller honestly believed that the warranted statement was true.

The federal regulation of express warranties:

The theories of product liability

An implied warranty arises automatically from the fact a sale has been made.

All of the following are product liability theories except:

Plaintiffs suing for damages caused by a defective product are limited to claims against the manufacturer(s) of such goods.

Under what type of warranty is the seller obligated to fix or replace a defective product within a reasonable time at no cost to the buyer?

A seller who makes a written express warranty for consumer goods costing more than $50 must conform to FTC regulations.

Manufacturers who prepare goods to the buyer's specifications are under exceptionally stringent warranty obligations for fitness for a particular use.

A full warranty requires the purchaser to pay for the shipping cost of returning the product for repair.

An examination of goods excludes any implied warranty with respect to a defect that:

An action for negligence rests upon common law tort principles.

In applying the "foreign substance/natural substance" liability test in the sale of food or drink, some courts refuse to impose warranty liability if the thing in the food that caused the harm was naturally present.

When a buyer makes a purchase without relying on the seller's skill and judgment, no warranty of fitness for a particular purpose exists.

An express warranty can be disclaimed, even if it was a critical part of the bargain to the buyer.

The sale of food or drink at a restaurant carries all of the following implied warranties except:

If an express warranty is breached:

Arthur was looking for a Father's Day gift for his dad, Tony. Tony was a cigar smoker but Arthur was a nonsmoker. Arthur went to a cigar store and was looking around when the proprietor suggested Arthur try a new imported cigar. The proprietor touted this new cigar as "just like the great Cuban cigars." Arthur was reluctant but did light one of the cigars, which had a pleasant aromatic smell and took about five to six minutes to be consumed. On this basis, Arthur bought a box of the cigars and presented them to his father as a gift. When the father smoked one of the cigars, it gave off an acrid smell and was completely consumed in less than two minutes. When Arthur saw this, he was very upset and asked his father to try another. The same situation was repeated with the acrid odor and the cigar burning down very quickly like a cigarette.?After Arthur tried unsuccessfully to return the cigars for a refund, Arthur filed a small claims court action against the store. The case was based on the failure of the purchased cigars to conform to the sample, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and the misleading statement "just like the Cuban cigars." Discuss the probable outcome of the case.