112. An implied warranty is:
a. illegal in many states
b. one the manufacturer always provides to the buyer in every relationship
c. one that the law prohibits from being waived
d. one consumers demand in all contracts
e. none of the other choices are correct
113. A(n) warranty is one the manufacturer contractually provides to the consumer.
a. implied
b. valid
c. express
d. rapid
e. none of the other choices are correct
114. A(n) warranty is one the manufacturer contractually provides to the consumer.
a. expiated
b. valid
c. explicit
d. rapid
e. none of the other choices are correct
115. A(n) warranty is one the law may insert regardless of actual contract terms.
a. implied
b. valid
c. explicit
d. rapid
e. none of the other choices are correct
116. A(n) warranty is one the law inserts into the relationship regardless of the actual contract terms.
a. inferred
b. valid
c. explicit
d. expiated
e. none of the other choices are correct
117. In cases involving strict liability for product failure based on contract law, the basis of the case is the relationship
between which of the following parties?
a. seller and manufacturer
b. attorney and judge
c. manufacturer and distributor
d. seller and supplier
e. manufacturer and injured party
118. In cases involving strict liability for product failure based on contract law, the basis of the case is the relationship
between which of the following parties?
a. seller and manufacturer
b. attorney and judge
c. manufacturer and distributor
d. seller and supplier
e. none of the other choices
119. The basis of the case in a(n) case is the relationship between the manufacturer and the injured party.
a. strict liability
b. felony
c. partial liability
d. intentional liability
e. warranty expression
120. The basis of the case in a(n) case is the relationship between the manufacturer and the injured party.
a. warranty expression
b. felony
c. partial liability
d. intentional liability
e. none of the other choices are correct
121. The first major application of the doctrine of strict liability for consumer products was in the area of:
a. automobiles
b. food and drink
c. glass windshields
d. tires
e. cigarettes
122. The first major application of the doctrine of strict liability for consumer products was in the area of:
a. automobiles
b. tobacco
c. glass windshields
d. tires
e. none of the other choices
123. In Mazetti v. Armour, a court in 1913 held that a food producer must provide food safe for human consumption,
even if there is no privity of contract. Liability was based on:
a. misrepresentation
b. caveat emptor
c. UCC Section 2-314
d. implied warranty of safety
e. express warranty of safety
124. In Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, a New Jersey court allowed a woman to recover damages for injuries she
suffered because of brake failure on her husband‘s car. The theory that the court applied to find strict liability was:
a. negligence in tort
b. breach of oral contract
c. implied warranty of safety
d. abuse of police powers
e. misuse of the commerce clause
125. In Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, a New Jersey court allowed a woman to recover damages for injuries she
suffered because of brake failure on her husband‘s car. The theory that the court applied to find strict liability was:
a. negligence in tort
b. breach of oral contract
c. abuse of police powers
d. misuse of the commerce clause
e. none of the other choices
126. Strict liability may be imposed if you, the buyer, receive an oral or written statement about the quality of a good, that
statement becomes part of your bargain with the manufacturer, and you suffer an injury because the statement was
not accurate. This is known as:
a. implied warranty
b. express warranty
c. caveat emptor
d. Magnuson-Moss warranty
e. none of the other choices
127. An affirmation of fact or promise made by a seller to a buyer that relates to the goods and becomes part of the
basis of the bargain creates a(n):
a. express warranty
b. implied warranty
c. product warranty
d. caveat emptor
e. none of the other choices
128. For the doctrine of strict liability to apply:
a. a consumer must have purchased the product directly from the manufacturer
b. a consumer need not have purchased the product directly from the manufacturer
c. a consumer must suffer life threatening injuries
d. a manufacturer must not intentionally misrepresent the product
e. none of the other choices are correct
129. For the doctrine of strict liability to apply:
a. a consumer must have purchased the product directly from the manufacturer
b. a consumer must misuse the product due to faulty instructions from the manufacturer
c. a consumer must suffer life threatening injuries
d. a manufacturer must not intentionally misrepresent the product
e. none of the other choices are correct
130. In Baxter v. Ford Motor, where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not shatterproof as
Ford had claimed, Ford’s liability was based on:
a. negligence in construction
b. misrepresentation in advertisements
c. privity in warranty
d. fraud in sales
e. none of the other choices
131. In Baxter v. Ford Motor, where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not shatterproof as
Ford had claimed, Ford’s liability was based on:
a. negligence in construction
b. breach of tort
c. privity in warranty
d. fraud in sales
e. none of the other choices
132. As seen in Baxter v. Ford Motor, where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not
shatterproof as Ford had claimed, misrepresentation about product quality in advertising may be the basis for:
a. strict liability
b. false liability
c. privity of contract
d. fraud in sales
e. none of the other choices are correct
133. As seen in Baxter v. Ford Motor, where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not
shatterproof as Ford had claimed, misrepresentation about product quality in advertising may be the basis for:
a. felony liability
b. false liability
c. privity of contract
d. fraud in sales
e. none of the other choices are correct
134. As seen in Baxter v. Ford Motor, where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not
shatterproof as Ford had claimed, may be the basis for strict liability in tort.
a. express warranty
b. misrepresentation in contracts
c. sales fraud
d. breach of contract
e. civil fraud
135. As seen in Baxter v. Ford Motor, where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not
shatterproof as Ford had claimed, may be the basis for strict liability in tort.
a. civil fraud
b. misrepresentation in privity
c. sales fraud
d. breach of tort
e. none of the other choices are correct
136. The Supreme Court of California in Greenman v. Yuba Power led in adopting a general rule:
a. imposing strict liability in tort
b. making the consumer prove the manufacturer’s negligence
c. allowing protection for manufacturers who did not warrant perfection of their products
d. of strict liability in case of express warranty of safety
e. none of the other choices
137. The Supreme Court of California in Greenman v. Yuba Power led in adopting a general rule:
a. imposing liability for ultrahazardous products
b. making the consumer prove the manufacturer’s negligence
c. allowing protection for manufacturers who did not warrant perfection of their products
d. of strict liability in case of express warranty of safety
e. none of the other choices
138. The case that led in adopting a general rule imposing strict liability in tort was:
a. Morriss v. Akers
b. Greenman v. Yuba Power
c. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company
d. MDM Group Associates v. CX Reinsurance Company
e. Johnson v. Chevrolet
139. The case that led in adopting a general rule imposing strict liability in tort was:
a. Morriss v. Akers
b. Johnson v. Chevrolet
c. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company
d. MDM Group Associates v. CX Reinsurance Company
e. none of the other choices are correct
140. In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Greenman was injured when a tool his wife bought him malfunctioned.
The Supreme Court of California imposed liability based on:
a. express warranty
b. implied warranty
c. strict liability in tort
d. lack of merchantability
e. none of the other choices
141. In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Greenman was injured when a tool his wife bought him malfunctioned.
The Supreme Court of California imposed liability based on:
a. express warranty
b. implied warranty
c. negligence in tort
d. lack of merchantability
e. none of the other choices
142. In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, where Greenman was injured when a tool his wife bought him
malfunctioned, the California high court stated the reason why strict liability should be applied to manufactures of
defective products. The reason is:
a. these manufacturers should bear the costs of injuries their products cause
b. consumers should bear the costs of injuries to make them more careful
c. consumers should split the costs of injuries with manufacturers; this will best insure the highest amount of
care
d. state statutes encouraged the adoption of a strict standard
e. none of the other choices
143. In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, where Greenman was injured when a tool his wife bought him
malfunctioned, the California high court stated the reason why strict liability should be applied to manufactures of
defective products. The reason is:
a. that insurance covers such losses
b. consumers should bear the costs of injuries to make them more careful
c. consumers should split the costs of injuries with manufacturers; this will best insure the highest amount of
care
d. state statutes encouraged the adoption of a strict standard
e. none of the other choices
144. As stated by the California high court in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, where Greenman was injured when
a tool his wife bought him malfunctioned, manufacturers should bear the costs of injuries their products cause and
thus:
a. strict liability should be applied to manufacturers of defective products
b. ultimate liability should be applied to manufacturers of defective products
c. consumers should bear all the risk of using defective products
d. manufacturers should bear some, but not all of the costs, of defective products
e. limited liability should be applied to manufacturers of defective products
145. As stated by the California high court in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, where Greenman was injured when
a tool his wife bought him malfunctioned, manufacturers should bear the costs of injuries their products cause and
thus:
a. limited liability should be applied to manufacturers of defective products
b. ultimate liability should be applied to manufacturers of defective products
c. consumers should bear all the risk of using defective products
d. manufacturers should bear some, but not all of the costs, of defective products
e. none of the other choices are correct
146. The Restatement (Second) of Torts Sect. 402A describes:
a. limited liability
b. strict liability in tort
c. contractual liability
d. express warranty of safety
e. all of the other choices
147. The Restatement (Second) of Torts Sect. 402A describes:
a. limited liability
b. liability for negligence by manufacturers
c. contractual liability
d. express warranty of safety
e. none of the other choices
148. Strict liability in tort rule in product injury cases is described in:
a. the Bill of Rights
b. the Law of Torts Sec. 832
c. the Restatement (Second) of Torts Sect. 402A
d. the Final Restatement of Torts Sect. 402A
e. none of the other choices are correct
149. Strict liability in tort rule in product injury cases is described in:
a. the Bill of Rights
b. the Constitution
c. the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
d. the Final Restatement of Torts Sect. 412A
e. none of the other choices are correct
150. The American Law Institute’s definition of strict liability has been revised in:
a. the Bill of Rights
b. the Constitution
c. the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
d. the Restatement (Third) of Torts
e. none of the other choices are correct
151. The American Law Institute’s definition of strict liability has been revised in:
a. the Bill of Rights
b. the Constitution
c. the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
d. the Final Restatement of Torts Sect. 402A
e. none of the other choices are correct
152. Which of the following is not required to be shown in a successful action on the theory of strict liability in tort?
a. the product was defective
b. the defect created an unreasonably dangerous product
c. the producer acted negligently in producing the item
d. the defect was the proximate cause of the injury
e. all of the other choices must be shown to be successful
153. The elements needed to establish strict liability in tort do not include which of the following:
a. the product was defective
b. the defect created an unreasonably dangerous product
c. the defect was the proximate cause in producing the injury suffered
d. the injury caused damages
e. all of the other choices are necessary
154. Under the rule of strict liability in tort, to be successful an injured party must show that the:
a. defect in the product was the proximate cause of injury
b. product in question was defective
c. defect in a product caused it to be unreasonably dangerous
d. losses were suffered
e. all of the other choices
155. The Restatement (Third) of Torts on product liability states that the producer of a product may be liable for defect
except in which case:
a. the producer failed to use a reasonable alternative design that would have produced greater safety
b. producer failed to provide reasonable instructions of foreseeable risks
c. product contains a defect even if all possible care was used in making the product
d. producer advertised features of the product that violated federal safety standards
e. all of the other choices are correct
156. The Restatement (Third) of Torts on product liability states that the producer of a product may be liable for defect
except in which case:
a. the producer failed to use a reasonable alternative design that would have produced greater safety
b. producer failed to provide reasonable instructions of foreseeable risks
c. product contains a defect even if all possible care was used in making the product
d. none of the other choices; those refer to the Restatement (Second)
e. all of the other specific choices are correct
157. The Restatement (Third) of Torts on product liability says that when considering a defective product the courts
should use:
a. a cost-benefit analysis
b. strict liability when any injury is inflicted
c. a risk–utility balancing
d. the rule of negligence
e. none of the other choices
158. The Restatement (Third) of Torts on product liability says that when considering a defective product the courts
should use:
a. a cost-benefit analysis
b. strict liability when any injury is inflicted
c. an express warranty rule
d. the rule of negligence
e. none of the other choices
159. Risk-utility balancing refers to the fact that:
a. some products cannot be made completely safe
b. all products can be made safe if manufacturers are willing to spend enough money
c. some products are inherently dangerous and should be banned from the market
d. consumers will always manage to hurt themselves by improperly using products
e. manufacturers must disclose all risks to using their product before putting it on the market
160. Risk-utility balancing refers to the fact that:
a. manufacturers must disclose all risks to using their product before putting it on the market
b. all products can be made completely safe if manufacturers are willing to spend enough money
c. some products are inherently dangerous and should be banned from the market
d. consumers will always manage to hurt themselves by improperly using products
e. none of the other choices are correct
161. When considering the risk-utility balance, courts consider:
a. the reality of technology, costs and use in practice
b. the profit of the manufacturers against the rate of consumer injury
c. the safety standards within the manufacturing plant
d. the level of consumer education needed to safely use the product
e. none of the other choices are correct
162. When considering the risk-utility balance, courts consider:
a. the extent of the manufacturer’s investment in making a safe product
b. the profit of the manufacturers against the rate of consumer injury
c. the safety standards within the manufacturing plant
d. the level of consumer education needed to safely use the product
e. none of the other choices are correct
163. The Restatement (Third) of Torts refers to strict liability in tort as:
a. product injury law
b. product liability law
c. product service law
d. product defect law
e. none of the other choices are correct
164. The Restatement (Third) of Torts refers to strict liability in tort as:
a. product injury law
b. product quality assurance law
c. product service law
d. consumer protection law
e. none of the other choices are correct
165. A manufacturing defect is one which:
a. occurred during the manufacturing stage and for which the consumer will be compensated
b. occurred during the manufacturing stage and for which the consumer will not be compensated
c. occurred after the manufacturing stage and for which the consumer will be compensated
d. occurred after the manufacturing stage and for which the consumer will not be compensated
e. none of the other choices are correct
166. Products liability suits are won for what reason(s):
a. for being poorly designed
b. for failure to warn consumers of hazards in use
c. for latent injuries that arise from products
d. a defect in manufacturing
e. all of the other choices
167. In Parish v. ICON, where a person was severely injured when jumping on a trampoline and sued its maker and the
maker of a safety net for failure to warn, the Iowa high court held that:
a. the makers had no duty to warn because the danger was obvious
b. the makers had a poorly designed set of instructions, so could be liable
c. the makers had failed to produce any warnings, so were liable
d. produced products that should never have been placed on the market because they are so dangerous that
warnings are unhelpful
e. none of the other choices