Person J suffered injuries when tires manufactured by company U fitted in his vehicle O when he was operating in the state I. The tires were manufactured in country B and sold to company G which shipped the tires to its plant in the state I where tires in vehicle O were fitted. Person J filed suit against company U for his losses. Company U asserted that it never had an employee, office or possessed any land in state I and it has never sold any tires directly in the state I. To discuss: Which party should prevail.

Question

Kate owned a small grocery store. One day John went to the store and purchased a can of chip dip that was, unknown to Kate or John, adulterated. John became seriously ill after eating the dip and sued Kate for damages on the grounds that she breached an implied warranty of merchantability. Is Kate liable? Why?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 3, Problem 3TS

Summary Introduction

Case summary:

Person J suffered injuries when tires manufactured by company U fitted in his vehicle O when he was operating in the state I. The tires were manufactured in country B and sold to company G which shipped the tires to its plant in the state I where tires in vehicle O were fitted. Person J filed suit against company U for his losses. Company U asserted that it never had an employee, office or possessed any land in state I and it has never sold any tires directly in the state I.

To discuss: Which party should prevail.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Kate owned a small grocery store. One day John went to the store and purchased a can of chip dip that was, unknown to Kate or John, adulterated. John became seriously ill after eating the dip and sued Kate for damages on the grounds that she breached an implied warranty of merchantability. Is Kate liable? Why?

Deborah McCullough bought a new car from Bill Swad Chrysler, Inc. The car was protected by both a limited warranty and an extended warranty. McCullough immediately encountered problems with the automobile’s brakes, transmission, and air conditioning and discovered a number of cosmetic defects as well. She returned the car to Swad for repairs, but Swad did not fix the brakes properly or perform any of the cosmetic work. Moreover, new problems appeared with respect to the car’s steering mechanism. McCullough returned the car twice more for repairs, but on each occasion, old problems persisted and new ones emerged. After the engine abruptly shut off on a short trip away from home and the brakes again failed on a more extensive excursion, McCullough presented Swad with a list of thirty-two of the car’s defects and demanded their correction. When Swad failed to remedy more than a few of the problems, McCullough wrote a letter to Swad calling for rescission of the purchase agreement and a…

On March 17, Peckham bought a new car from Larsen Chevrolet for $16,400. During the first one and one-half months after the purchase, Peckham discovered that the car’s hood was dented, its gas tank contained no baffles, its emergency brake was inoperable, the car did not have a jack or a spare tire, and neither the clock nor the speedometer worked. Larsen claimed that Peckham knew of the defects at the time of the purchase. Peckham, on the other hand, claimed that he did not know the extent of the defects and that despite his repeated efforts the defects were not repaired until June 11. Then, on July 15, the car’s dashboard caught fire, leaving the car’s interior damaged and the car itself inoperable. Peckham then returned to Larsen Chevrolet and told Larsen that he had to repair the car at his own expense or that he, Peckham, would either rescind the contract or demand a new automobile. Peckham also claimed that at the end of their conversation he notified Larsen Chevrolet that he was…