The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases (MindTap Course List)
10th Edition
ISBN: 9781305967304
Author: Frank B. Cross, Roger LeRoy Miller
Publisher: Cengage Learning
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 26, Problem 3CT
Summary Introduction
Case summary: A person JS signed a contract to buy the house of a person HA. The person JS later discovered that the house is haunted. The person JS sued the person HA. The court dismissed the case.
To explain: The reason for applying the strict rule of caveat emptor by the court will be considered inappropriate.
Summary Introduction
Case summary: A person JS signed a contract to buy the house of a person HA. The person JS later discovered that the house is haunted. The person JS sued the person HA. The court dismissed the case.
To explain: Increase in the cost of the purchase by applying rule of caveat emptor.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Would it be constitutional for a court to refuse enforcement of all choice-of-court clauses today?
19) The Elle Corporation manufactures fingernail polish. Suzy buys a container of Elle's
fingernail polish, applies it to her nails, and suffers a severe allergic reaction. She sues Elle under
the implied warranty of merchantability, The test for determining whether Suzy will recover is
whether:
A) the nail polish she bought was suitable for the needs of the average consumer.
B) the nail polish she bought properly performed its function of coloring one's nails.
C) such a reaction in an appreciable number of consumers was reasonably foreseeable.
D) the ingredient causing the reaction was foreign to the nail polish or natural to it.
nating one model, Bobby notices
Case: Brandt v. Boston Scientific Corporation and Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center
Facts: Brenda Brandt was admitted to Bush Lincoln Health Center for treatment of urinary incontinence. She had a surgical procedure in which a sling was implanted. The manufacturer, Boston Scientific, recalled the item. Brenda had to have the sling surgically removed. She sued the manufacturer and the designer.
In this case, Brandt’s bill from the Health Center reflects that of the $11,174.50 total charge for her surgery. $1,659.50, or 14.9%, was for the sling and its surgical kit.
What provision of the UCC did the plaintiff sue under?
What was the reasoning and decision of the court hearing the case
Chapter 26 Solutions
The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases (MindTap Course List)
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- . In Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP, 2013 ONCA 657, damages had been claimed for both express and implied warranty. Summarize the Court’s ruling regarding these two issues.arrow_forwardddarrow_forwardBUSiness law- What are some common exceptions to the doctrine of caveat emptor in consumer transactionsarrow_forward
- With reference to contract law terms: a) Define exclusion clauses and what their effect is. b) With reference to case law explain under what circumstances an exclusion clause will be incorporated into a contract. c) What type of liability cannot be excluded by exclusion clauses and would render them automatically void? Reference can be made to UCTA 1977 and Consumer Rights Act 2015arrow_forwardRegarding legality, the first right granted to minors in contract law cases is the right to dis-affirm. How would you "standardize or structure" the following rule of law regarding dis-affirming for minors? In its current state, it appears to be clear as mud! "Dis-affirming occurs when the minor states, either in a verbal declaration or by their actions, that they no longer intend to be bound by the terms of the contract to which they are a party. Upon reaching the age of majority, the minor may choose to disaffirm the contract they were entered into while in the minority. If they do not disaffirm the contract within a reasonable period of time, they are considered to have ratified the contract."arrow_forwardReaction to discussion below: Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. was a tenant in a building where alarm systems were maintained by the ADT company. When the systems were defective and allowed water into the building, it damaged Melodee’s property; Then Melodee decided to sue ADT and their defense was that the service contract limited the liability to 10% of the annual service charge given to the customers. The limitation can be valid since the ADT company did not provide much liability protection. The ADT company can offer another protection plan to Melodee, which would cover her property but at a higher price rate. This case limitation of liability clauses will be enacted since ADT company was not fully liable for Melodee's property, which only would cover the limited 10%. A limitation of liability clauses contract states that one of the parties is not fully liable for damages in case of a breach. The ADT company is at fault for the malfunctions in their systems they should offer a higher…arrow_forward
- Pls help ASAParrow_forward88. when may an agent in Florida write controlled business If writing an amount of similar business equal to or greater than If writing an amount of similar business of at least twice the amount of controlled business If accepting no commissions on the controlled business If not advertising to the general public as an insurance agentarrow_forwardAnalysis of Prewitt v Numismatic Funding Corporation, 745 F.2d 1175 (8th Cir. 1984)? Did the court make the right decision? Why or why not?arrow_forward
- examples of landmark case laws where the offer is not clear ?arrow_forwardPerformance (fulfillment of purpose), expiration, destruction or condemnation, death, incapacitation, or bankruptcy, and loss of broker license are all types of agency termination due to: mutual decision broker decision operation of law acts of the partiesarrow_forwardBUSINESS LAW EXPERT PLS ATTAIN THIS 1. An offer to contract was made to you by email. You decided to accept that offer and replied by email stating your acceptance. When is the acceptance validly communicated? 2. P entered into a 10-year lease of a warehouse. Thereafter, the local authority closed the only street access to the warehouse because of a dangerous building. The street was to be re-opened after the dangerous building was demolished. Discuss whether P could refuse to pay rent and have the contract set aside on the basis of frustration.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage Learning
Essentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage Learning
Accounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student Edition
Business
ISBN:9781337407137
Author:Kelly
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Essentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...
Business
ISBN:9781337386494
Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana Loewy
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Accounting Information Systems (14th Edition)
Business
ISBN:9780134474021
Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. Steinbart
Publisher:PEARSON
International Business: Competing in the Global M...
Business
ISBN:9781259929441
Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. Hult
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education