Deck 36: Contracts and Consumer Protection

Question 1

In the facts of the previous questions,according to the reasoning of the dissent in the Greene case,VividAire may owe consumers of air freshener

A)a duty not to increase the price of the product if it does not perform as promised.
B)a duty to warn that ingesting the liquid poses a specific material risk of death.
C)a refund or replacement if the product does not freshen the air.
D)no duty with respect to the liquid's air-freshening capability or to harm that may result from ingesting it.

Answer 1

B

Question 2

Pearl and Quincey agree to a contract subject to the UCC.A suit based on a breach of the UCC's requirement of good faith and fair dealing can be maintained

A)only if Pearl and Quincey have equal bargaining power.
B)only if either Pearl or Quincey lacks business sophistication.
C)under any of these circumstances.
D)under none of these circumstances.

Answer 2

C

Question 3

A state statute provides that a manufacturer has no duty to warn of "a material risk that should be obvious to a reasonably prudent product user." According to the majority in Greene v.A.P.Products,Ltd. ,a "material risk" is

A)a danger of physical harm,as opposed to mental harm.
B)a gamble that substantial performance will not satisfy a contract.
C)an important or significant exposure to the chance of injury or loss.
D)a risk of a major financial loss in the marketing of a product.

Answer 3

C

Question 4

Under the statute in the previous question,VividAire,Inc. ,makes and markets aromatic liquid air fresheners.The products' labels do not warn against ingesting the liquid.Under the reasoning of the majority in the Greene case,the conclusion in VividAire's situation would be that

A)a failure of the product to freshen the air would breach VividAire's contract with consumers.
B)any loss to VividAire in marketing its product could be recouped by increasing the prices of other products.
C)any material risk involved with ingesting the liquid is,or should be,obvious.
D)VividAire would be liable for bodily harm,but not brain damage,to a user who ingests the liquid.

Question 5

GR8 Cereal Company contacts Harvest Distillers,Inc.(HDI),to buy grain.In an exchange of e-mail,the parties agree to the terms.When HDI sells the grain to Ideal Breakfast Corporation,GR8 files a suit against HDI for breach of contract.The court is most likely to hold that there was

A)a contract,and HDI breached it.
B)no contract because e-mail is "intangible messaging."
C)no contract because e-mail is not "signed."
D)no contract because e-mail is not "writing."

Question 6

V-Power Corporation contacts Windstar,Inc. ,to buy wind farm equipment.In an exchange of e-mail,the parties agree to terms.When Windstar sells the equipment to Xtra Generation Company,V-Power files a suit against Windstar for breach of contract.Windstar argues that e-mail is not an appropriate means of communication in their industry.The court is most likely to rule that Windstar must prove that in their industry

A)there are appropriate means of communication other than e-mail.
B)there is only one appropriate means of business communication.
C)trade usage and the parties' course of dealing never involved e-mail.
D)trade usage and the parties' course of dealing rarely involved e-mail.

Question 7

Harry and Ilsa agree to a contract subject to the UCC.A dispute arises,and Harry files a suit against Ilsa,alleging breach of contract.Harry is not likely to win if Ilsa adhered to

A)the express terms of the contract only.
B)the UCC's good faith requirements only.
C)the express terms and the good faith requirements.
D)neither the express terms nor the good faith requirements.