Buick Motor And Macpherson Case

The plaintiff (Southern Prestige Industries, Inc.) initiated an action against the defendant (Independence Plating Corp.) in a North Carolina state court for a breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that defects in the defendant’s anodizing process caused the plaintiff’s machine parts to be rejected by Kidde Aerospace. The defendant being a New Jersey corporation and having its only office and all of its personnel situated in the state filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant appealed arguing that there were insufficient contacts to satisfy the due process of law requirements

Witnesses for the complainant: Anatoly Zlatokrasov, owner of AZTE, Steven, Pinkow, Joshua, Teodor Epelbaum, owner of AZTE, and Andrei Lissenkov, owner of Livox and JCP Autos.

In the case of Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, the plaintiff fractured her wrist while riding in a Rue le Dodge bumper car at an amusement park in California. The plaintiff filed a case of negligence against the defendant. To prove negligence, the plaintiff will have to establish all of the following requirements: (1) duty of due care, breach of duty, causation, and injury. The defendant had the Rue le Dodge ride inspected yearly by state safety regulators and daily by the park’s maintenance staff. This means they filled their duty of maintaining the ride, breach of duty than does not apply or causation, but there was injury.

Case Study of case 69 A.D.3d 413: Yun Tung Chow vs. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.

and injuring the Plaintiff with no warning, breaching the reasonably established agreement how the Plaintiff was to help only with Transporting of said Household items, with the Plaintiff’s Truck and Trailer only. Defendant Benny Hans Sorensen’s Negligent instructions and the Defendant Gaden Griffin’s Negligent Actions caused the Plaintiff’s Permanent Damages, adding injury to the Plaintiff’s existing Disability, with no care and lack of consideration of Plaintiff’s injury, especially immediately after the Plaintiff’s injury while the Plaintiff was moaning and complaining about how heavy the said 330 lbs Appliance was and walking in circles and holding his back, neck, and shoulder. The Defendants’ gross actions and negligent actions

Plaintiff’s allegations must show that Maloney’s behavior was sufficient to prove he is liable. Maloney’s commissions for the sale of insurance policies are insufficient evidence that he acted

They asserted negligent design, negligent manufacture, breach of warranty, and negligent failure to warn of inherent dangers. “The jury returned verdicts in favor of Laaperi in all four actions on the failure to warn claim. The jury assessed damages in the amount of $350,000 in each of the three actions brought on behalf of the deceased sons, and $750,000 in the action brought on behalf of Janet Laaperi. The defendants' motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied, and defendants appealed” (United States Court of Appeals,

This story is replete with fascinating facts and the intricacies that are inherent in the facts of the case make for a great story.The baseball bat was broken from the outset when it was bought by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant should have to return the baseball bat and pay the money back to the plaintiff that plaintiff paid for said bat. The plaintiff bought a baseball bat from the defendant and the baseball bat turned out to be broken because, since as soon as the defendant used the bat to play baseball, the bat shattered into a million pieces. Shattering into a million pieces certainly violates the implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC 2-314). No Industria De Calcados Martini Ltda. v.

In your report you mentioned there was smashed banana on the plaintiffs foot, did you also notice banana on the floor or on the mats? Furthermore, why did the banana display not have mats or carpet completely around it? The answer to this question would establish if there was banana on the floor and why the store only put slip mats in front and carpet behind the display. In addition, this question establishes the store did not safe guard the sides of the display.

On or about June 25, 2016, the Plaintiff’s automobile, a 2006 Lincoln LS, was stolen from her and burned to the point where the property damage to the automobile was determined to be a total loss. At the time, the Plaintiff was covered by an automobile insurance police with the

In the case of Branham v. Ford Motor Co., the Plaintiff brought the case against Hale, the driver, and Ford because the company failed to test the seat-belt sleeve, even though he did not "seriously pursue the claim against Hale" (Reed, Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Shedd & Morehead, 2012). The case against Ford was based on "two product liability claims: one for not testing the seat belt and the other a design defect claim related to the vehicles tendency to rollover" (Reed, Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Shedd & Morehead, 2012). Branham alleged in his case that "Ford was negligent and strictly liable in failing to effectively test the

To illustrate, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled they had jurisdiction over Owens and Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac, Inc. (“Fitzner”). Lowry v. Owens, 621 So. 2d 1262, 1267 (Ala. 1993). Fitzner is a Mississippi corporation licensed to do business in Mississippi. Id. at 1263. A third party initiated contact with Owens who bought cars from Fitzner for resale in Alabama. Id. Lowry picked up the car with a third party, and a later inspection revealed the car had been wrecked and was not new as advertised. Id. Lowry sued Owens and Fitzner for fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit from the original car sale. Id. at 1264. The Supreme Court of Alabama needed to determine if Fitzner had sufficient minimum contacts to justify the court asserting personal jurisdiction over Fitzner in Alabama. Id. Minimum contacts is made up of purposeful availment and foreseeability. Id. at 1265. Fitzner’s alleged fraud alone is not sufficient for purposeful

Case Analysis: Blanchard Importing and Distributing Co. Inc. (HBS Case 9 - 673 - 033)

Case Analysis: Blanchard Importing and Distributing Co. Inc. (HBS Case 9 - 673 - 033)

The parties involved in this case are Robinson Helicopter Company and Dana Corporation. Robinson is the plaintiff and Dana Corporation is the defendant. Robinson Helicopter Inc., is a fabricant of helicopters and Dana Corp. a vendor from which it purchases components to build helicopters. Two of Robinson’s well-known models are its R22, which is double-seated and is essentially utilized by pilots for training purposes, and its R44, which is larger and serves to many other purposes. What these two models have in common is that they both use a safety mechanism that enables pilots to maintain control and land safely, in the event that the machine loses force during flight; it is called the “sprag clutches” and it is produced by Dana’s Formsprag division. All aircraft manufacturers in the United States are required to obtain a certificate from the FAA, which is committed to regulate the production of aircrafts as this document freezes their design from the date of its delivery. Thereby, the machines have to be produced precisely in accordance to it. Moreover, fabricants are not allowed to perform any changes to their products without notifying the FAA; they are firstly required to present any suggested modification to the FAA and it is only after getting the FAA agreement that they