Exam 24: Product Liability: Warranties and Torts

arrow
  • Select Tags
search iconSearch Question
flashcardsStudy Flashcards
  • Select Tags

An express warranty is a statement of fact about the product that becomes part of the basis of the bargain.​

(True/False)
4.9/5
(44)

Under the concept of ______, only the original parties to a sales contract could sue each other.​

(Multiple Choice)
4.8/5
(35)

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

(True/False)
4.8/5
(33)

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

(True/False)
4.8/5
(34)

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

(True/False)
4.8/5
(39)

Which of the following must be proven by a plaintiff to recover for strict liability in tort?

(Multiple Choice)
4.8/5
(36)

The warranties of both merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose exist under the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG).​

(True/False)
4.8/5
(41)

An action for negligence rests upon common law tort principles.​

(True/False)
4.8/5
(47)

Product liability based on privity of contract is accepted by the Uniform Commercial Code.​

(True/False)
4.9/5
(44)

The statement "This chainsaw is the best one on the market" will most likely create an express warranty.​

(True/False)
4.8/5
(35)

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

(True/False)
4.9/5
(38)

An inadequate warning label about a product's dangers can be considered a defective product. ​

(True/False)
4.9/5
(33)

The federal regulation of express warranties:

(Multiple Choice)
4.8/5
(37)

If there is a written contract, a disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability must be conspicuous.​

(True/False)
4.8/5
(26)

The theories of product liability

(Multiple Choice)
4.9/5
(33)

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.

(Essay)
4.7/5
(31)

Thelma purchased a used truck from Hall that had been manufactured by International Harvester.To work on the truck engine, Thelma had to have the cab of the truck raised.When it was so raised, the cab fell unexpectedly and fatally injured Thelma.Suit was brought for her wrongful death against Hall and International Harvester.The suit was based on theories of negligence, strict tort liability, and breach of warranty.The defense was raised that there was no liability because the sale to Thelma had been made "as is" and the truck was a used truck.Were these defenses valid?

(Essay)
4.9/5
(38)

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

(True/False)
4.7/5
(30)

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

(True/False)
4.8/5
(35)

An auto manufacturer is excused from strict liability if it can be shown the defect was in a component part purchased from a manufacturer.​

(True/False)
4.8/5
(37)
Showing 21 - 40 of 54
close modal

Filters

  • Essay(0)
  • Multiple Choice(0)
  • Short Answer(0)
  • True False(0)
  • Matching(0)