Cardware's new line of cardigans is aimed to influence both children and parents to express interest in the company's products. These respective cardigans make it possible for children to identify with their dolls and to thus feel that it would be in their best interest for both to wear the same types of clothes. However, the fact that they have buttons meant to look like cakes means that they are a serious health hazard. Considering Kendra's situation, it would be safe to say that a 4-year-old has trouble differentiating between things she should eat and things she should not eat -- especially when the latter are designed to look like they are edible.
If I were to sue Cardware, I would choose to do so by addressing the idea of strict liability: the company should have considered the likeliness that a child would be confused as a result of seeing a button looking like a piece of cake. Considering that the company designed these items for children, it would only seem natural for it to have considered the effects that they could have on people. The fact that the typical markets associated with these products have a limited understanding of the difference between something they can eat and something that is inedible means that it would confuse them even more to come across things that look edible but are not actually.
Unit 3. The fact that Cardware's new jersey sweater line has a boomerang with the words "Just wear it" underneath it can be considered an attempt by the company to connect with markets normally interested in Nike products. The boomerang can be confused to the Nike logo and the text is very similar to Nike's "Just do it" motto. While Nike is likely to take Cardware to court, it is probable for the two to reach a small settlement or for Cardware not to be liable for this. All things considered, most people can make the difference between the two and are even likely to avoid buying Cardware's products as a result of them looking like copies of Nike products.
Unit 4. Candi Cardigan's request for advice regarding a dress she would wear during a charity luncheon cannot possibly be interpreted as her asking Larry Viveron to actually design the dress for her. Even with this, the designer would have the right to charge Candi if he chose to do so as a result of his consulting services. The cost is difficult to determine, given that it would mainly depend on the time that he would spend contemplating the dress.
You’re 81% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.