Product Liability: Warranties and Torts Facts: Maria

¶ … Product Liability: Warranties and Torts

Facts: Maria Gonzalez rented an apartment from Maria Garcia. Garcia installed a Morflo water heater, which was kept in an area inaccessible by tenants. The water heater and its manual contained extensive warnings indicating that burns could occur if the water was above 120 degrees. Gonzalez's 15-month-old child Angel was scalded while being bathed by his 15-year-old brother, in a manner contra-indicated by the warnings on the heater and in the manual. Angel and his mother brought suit against Morflo and its distributor, alleging defects in the design of the water heater and the failure to warn.

Should they recover?

Reasoning: A party cannot recover from a manufacturer when a product has been used in a non-conforming manner. A manufacturer meets its duty to warn by placing warnings on the product and in the manual provided for its use.

Answer: Yes.

Facts: Avery purchased a refrigerator from a retail store. The written contract stated that the refrigerator was sold "as is" and that the warranty of merchantability and all warranties of fitness were excluded. The refrigerator worked properly for a few weeks and then stopped. The store refused to do anything about it because of the exclusion of the warranties made by the contract; Avery claimed that this exclusion was not binding because it was unconscionable.

Issue: Was Avery correct?

Reasoning: New products carry warranties of merchantability and fitness for use, which are required by law. A customer cannot contract with a merchant to ignore those laws.

10. Answer: No.

Facts: Zogarts manufactured and sold a practice device for beginning golfers. According to the statements on the package, the device was completely safe, and a player could never be struck by the device's golf ball. Hauter was hit by the ball while practicing with the device. He sued Zogarts, which denied liability on the ground that the statements were merely matters of opinion, so liability could not be based on them.

Issue: Was this a valid defense?

Reasoning: A customer relies upon the representations on a product's packaging when purchasing the product. Therefore, if a customer uses the device in the manner specified, but is injured anyway, he has a claim against the manufacturer.

11. Answer: Yes.

Facts: A buyer purchased an engine to operate an irrigation pump, which he selected the engine from a large number that were standing on the floor of the seller's stockroom. A label on the engine stated that it would produce 100 horsepower. The buyer needed an engine at least 80 horsepower, but in actual use in the buyer's irrigation system, the engine generated only 60

horsepower. The buyer sued the seller for damages. The seller raised the defense that no warranty of fitness for the buyer's particular purpose of operating an irrigation pump had arisen because the seller did not know of the use to which the buyer intended to put the engine and the buyer had not relied on the seller's skill and judgment in selecting the particular engine.

Issue: Did the seller have any liability based on warranties?

Reasoning: Products that fail to meet their stated capabilities when used in a conforming manner are defective and the manufacturer and/or seller are liable for breach of warranty.

Chapter 25 on Obligations and Performance

2. Answer: No.

Facts: Central District Alarm (CDA) and Hal-Tuc entered into a written sales agreement providing that CDA would sell and install new security equipment, including a new Javelin VCR. CDA installed a used JVC VCR instead of a new Javelin VCR. CDA denied the mistake for over two weeks, then finally offered to replace the used JVC VCR with a new Javelin VCR, in one or two months. Hal-Tuc asked CDA to return its deposit and take the equipment back, but CDA refused. CDA filed a petition against Hal-Tuc for damages for breach of contract. Hal-Tuc filed a counterclaim alleging fraud. CDA asserted it had the right to cure by tendering conforming goods after Hal-Tuc rejected the nonconforming goods.

Issue: Is CDA correct?

Reasoning: A seller can cure by tendering non-conforming goods with a reasonable period of time of being notified of the defect. Six to ten weeks after notification is not a reasonable period of time.