ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS
1. At the start of the social season, Aunt Lavinia purchased a hula skirt in Sadie’s dress shop.
The salesperson told her, “This superior garment will do things for a person.” Aunt Lavinia’s
houseguest, her niece, Florabelle, asked and obtained her aunt’s permission to wear the skirt
to a masquerade ball. In the midst of the festivity, where there was much dancing, drinking,
and smoking, the long skirt brushed against a glimmering cigarette butt. Unknown to Aunt
Lavinia and Florabelle, its wearer, the garment was made of a fine unwoven fiber that is
highly flammable. It burst into flames, and Florabelle suffered severe burns. Aunt Lavinia
notified Sadie of the accident and of Florabelle’s intention to recover from Sadie. Can
Florabelle recover damages from Sadie, the proprietor of the dress shop, and Exotic Clothes,
Inc., the manufacturer from which Sadie purchased the skirt? Explain.
Answer: Horizontal Privity. Florabelle can recover from Sadie and from Exotic Clothes. Lack
of horizontal privity is no defense as to Sadie because Florabelle is a statutory third-party
beneficiary under Section 2-318 of the U.C.C. Moreover, vertical privity is no defense for the
2. The Talent Company, manufacturer of a widely advertised and expensive perfume, sold a
quantity of this product to Young, a retail druggist. Dentley and Bird visited Young’s store and
Dentley, desiring to make a gift to Bird, purchased from Young a bottle of this perfume, asking
for it by its trade name. Young wrapped up the bottle and handed it directly to Bird. The
perfume contained a foreign chemical that, upon the first use of the perfume by Bird, severely
burned her face and caused a permanent facial disfigurement. What are the rights of Bird, if
any, against Dentley, Young, and the Talent Company, respectively?
Answer: Implied Warranty of Merchantability/Strict Liability in Tort. Bird has no right of
action against Dently because the perfume was a gift from Dently to Bird. However, Bird has
3. John Doe purchased a bottle of “Bleach-All,” a well-known brand, from Roe’s combination
service station and grocery store. When John used the “Bleach-All,” his clothes severely
deteriorated due to an error in mixing the chemicals during the detergent’s manufacture. John
brings an action against Roe to recover damages. Explain whether John will be successful in
his lawsuit.
Answer: Strict Liability in Tort. Judgment for John Doe. Roe is a “merchant” within the
meaning of the U.C.C. since he is a “person who deals in goods of the kind.” Section 2-104.
4. A route salesperson for Ideal Milk Company delivered a half-gallon glass jug of milk to
Allen’s home. The next day, when Allen grasped the milk container by its neck to take it out of
his refrigerator, it shattered in his hand and caused serious injury. Allen paid Ideal on a
monthly basis for the regular delivery of milk. Ideal’s milk bottles each contained the legend
“Property of Ideal—to be returned,” and the route salesman would pick up the empty bottles
when he delivered milk. Can Allen recover damages from Ideal Milk Company? Why?
Answer: Implied Warranty of Merchantability/Strict Liability in Tort. Yes, Allen may recover
damages. When Allen purchased the half-gallon of milk from defendant Ideal Milk Co., the
5. While Butler and his wife, Wanda, were browsing through Sloan’s used car lot, Butler told
Sloan that he was looking for a safe but cheap family car. Sloan said, “That old Cadillac
hearse ain’t hurt at all, and I’ll sell it to you for $5,950.” Butler said, “I’ll have to take your
word for it because I don’t know a thing about cars.” Butler asked Sloan whether he would
guarantee the car, and Sloan replied, “I don’t guarantee used cars.” Then Sloan added, “But
I have checked that Caddy over, and it will run another 10,000 miles without needing any
repairs.” Butler replied, “It has to because I won’t have an extra dime for any repairs.”
Butler made a down payment of $800 and signed a printed form contract, furnished by Sloan,
that contained a provision: “Seller does not warrant the condition or performance of any
used automobile.”
As Butler drove the car out of Sloan’s lot, the left rear wheel fell off and Butler lost control of
the vehicle. It veered over an embankment, causing serious injuries to Wanda. What is Sloan’s
liability to Butler and Wanda?
Answer: Butler may recover under a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and under
a strict liability in tort cause of action and possibly for a breach of an express warranty.
Warranties An express warranty need not be in writing. An affirmation or promise is
sufficient. In this particular case it is debatable whether Sloan’s statement concerning the
6. John purchased for cash a Revenge automobile manufactured by Japanese Motors, Ltd., from
an authorized franchised dealer in the United States. The dealer told John that the car had a
“twenty-four month 24,000-mile warranty.” Two days after John accepted delivery of the car,
he received an eighty-page manual in fine print that stated, among other things, on page 72:
The warranties herein are expressly in lieu of any other express or implied warranty,
including any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness, and of any other obligation
on the part of the company or the selling dealer.
Japanese Motors, Ltd., and the selling dealer warrant to the owner each part of this
vehicle to be free under use and service from defects in material and workmanship for a
period of twenty-four months from the date of original retail delivery of first use, or until it
has been driven for 24,000 miles, whichever first occurs.
Within nine months after the purchase, John was forced to return the car for repairs to the
dealer on thirty different occasions; and the car has been in the dealer’s custody for more
than seventy days during these nine months. The dealer has been forced to make major
repairs to the engine, transmission, and steering assembly. The car is now in the custody of
the dealer for further major repairs, and John has demanded that it keep the car and refund
his entire purchase price. The dealer has refused on the ground that it has not breached its
contract and is willing to continue repairing the car during the remainder of the
“twenty-four/twenty-four” period. What are the rights and liabilities of the dealer and John?
Answer: Warranties/Strict Liability. The dealer did not properly disclaim the implied warranty
of merchantability, and he has breached this warranty. The dealer’s continued willingness to
7. Fred Lyon of New York, while on vacation in California, rented a new model Home Run
automobile from Hart’s Drive-A-Car. The car was manufactured by the Ange Motor Company
and was purchased by Hart’s from Jammer, Inc., an automobile importer. Lyon was driving
the car on a street in San Jose when, due to a defect in the steering mechanism, it suddenly
became impossible to steer. The speed of the car at the time was thirty miles per hour, but
before Lyon could bring it to a stop, the car jumped a low curb and struck Peter Wolf, who
was standing on the sidewalk, breaking both of his legs and causing other injuries. What
rights does Wolf have against (a) Hart’s Drive-A-Car, (b) Ange Motor Company, (c) Jammer,
and (d) Lyon?
Answer: Strict Liability: Privity. Wolf would be able to prevail under a strict liability cause of
action against Harts, Ange Motor Company, and Jammer, Inc., but not against Lyon. Ange
Motor Co., the manufacturer, however, should bear the ultimate responsibility due to the
defective parts.
8. The plaintiff brings this cause of action against a manufacturer for the loss of his leg below
the hip. The leg was lost when caught in the gears of a screw auger machine sold and
installed by the defendant. Shortly before the accident, the plaintiff’s co-employees had
removed a covering panel from the machine by use of sledgehammers and crowbars in order
to do repair work. When finished with their repairs, they replaced the panel with a single
piece of cardboard instead of restoring the equipment to its original condition. The plaintiff
stepped on the cardboard in the course of his work and fell, catching his leg in the moving
parts. Explain what causes of action the plaintiff may have against the defendant and what
defenses the defendant could raise.
Answer: Design Defect. In this case the court held that the machine was so well built that it
contained a design defect because it was extremely difficult to disassemble and it should have
been equipped with an automatic safety interlock device to prevent its operation when it was
disassembled.
9. The plaintiff, while driving a pickup manufactured by the defendant, was struck in the rear by
another motor vehicle. Upon impact, the plaintiff’s head was jarred backward against the
rear window of the cab, causing the plaintiff serious injury. The pickup was not equipped with
a headrest, and none was required at the time. Should the plaintiff prevail on a cause of
action based upon strict liability in tort? Why? Why not?
Answer: Design Defect. The facts as presented are premised upon those found in Buccery v.
General Motors Corp., 60 Cal. App. 3d 533, 132 Cal. Rptr. 605 (1976). The court held that
the vehicle was defectively designed in that a headrest should have been installed for safety
10. The plaintiff, while dining at the defendant’s restaurant, ordered a chicken pot pie. While
she was eating, she swallowed a sliver of chicken bone, which became lodged in her throat,
causing her serious injury. The plaintiff brings a cause of action. Should she prevail? Why?
Answer: Strict Liability: Unreasonably Dangerous. There are two different tests which
jurisdictions apply to this type of fact situation, i.e., is the product unreasonably dangerous.
11.Salem Supply Co. sells new and used gardening equipment. Ben Buyer purchased a slightly
used riding lawn mower for $1,500. The price was considerably less than that of comparable
used mowers. The sale was clearly indicated to be “as is.” Two weeks after Ben purchased
the mower, the police arrived at his house with Owen Owner, the true owner of the lawn
mower, which was stolen from his yard, and reclaimed the mower. What recourse, if any, does
Ben have?
Answer: Warranty of Title. Ben can sue Salem Supply Co. for breach of warranty of title.
Under the UCC Warranty of Title found in 2-312, the seller is obligated to convey the right to
ownership without any lien. Because the goods were stolen, Salem Supply Co. had a void
12. Seigel, a seventy-three-year-old man, was injured at one of Giant Food’s retail food
stores when a bottle of Coca-Cola exploded as he was placing a six-pack of Coke into his
shopping cart. The explosion caused him to lose his balance and fall, with injuries resulting.
Has Giant breached its implied warranty of merchantability to Seigel? Why?
Answer: Warranty of Merchantability/Moment of Sale. Yes, decision for Seigel. The few
reported decisions are in conflict as to whether a sale or contract is made before closing at the
13. Guarino and two others (plaintiffs) died of gas asphyxiation and five others were injured
when they entered a sewer tunnel without masks to answer the cries for help of their crew
leader, Rooney. Rooney had left the sewer shaft and entered the tunnel to fix a water leakage
problem. Having corrected the problem, Rooney was returning to the shaft when he
apparently was overcome by gas because of a defect in his oxygen mask, which was
manufactured by Mine Safety Appliance Company (defendant). The plaintiffs’ estates brought
this action against the defendant for breach of warranty, and the defendant raised the defense
of the plaintiffs’ voluntary assumption of the risk. Explain who will prevail.
Answer: Defenses to Breach of Warranty of Merchantability. Decision the plaintiffs. If a seller
of goods through its negligence or breach of warranty places another person in a position of
14. Green Seed Company packaged, labeled, and marketed a quality tomato seed known as
“Green’s Pink Shipper” for commercial sale. Brown Seed Store, a retailer, purchased the seed
from Green Seed and then sold it to Guy Jones, an individual engaged in the business of
growing tomato seedlings for sale to commercial tomato growers. Williams purchased the
seedlings from Jones and then transplanted and raised them in accordance with accepted
farming methods. The plants, however, produced not the promised “Pink Shipper” tomatoes
but an inferior variety that spoiled in the field. Williams then brought an action against Green
Seed for $90,000, claiming that his crop damage had been caused by Green Seed’s breach of
an express warranty. Green Seed argued in defense that its warranty did not extend to remote
purchasers and that the company did not receive notice of the claimed breach of warranty.
Who will prevail? Why?
Answer: Privity of Contract. Decision for Williams. The Code and the restatement broaden the
15. Shell Oil Company leased to Flying Tiger Line a gasoline tank truck with a movable ladder
for refueling certain types of aircraft. Under the terms of the lease, Flying Tiger was to
maintain the equipment in safe operating order, but Shell was obligated to make most of the
repairs at Flying Tiger’s request. Four years after the lease was entered, Shell, at Flying
Tiger’s request, replaced the original ladder with a new one built by an undisclosed
manufacturer. Both Flying Tiger and Shell inspected the new ladder. Two years later,
however, Price, an aircraft mechanic employed by Flying Tiger, was seriously injured when
the ladder’s legs split while he was climbing onto an airplane wing. What are Price’s rights
against Shell and Flying Tiger?
Answer: Strict Liability in Tort/402A Products Liability. Decision for Flying Tiger. The court
in the case said that the doctrine of strict liability in tort is applicable to bailors and lessors of
personal property as well as to sellers, because both the sellers and the lessor place an article
16. A gasoline-powered lawn mower, which had been used earlier to cut grass, was left
unattended next to a water heater which had been manufactured by Sears. Expert testimony
was presented to demonstrate that vapors from the mower’s gas tank accumulated under the
water heater and resulted in an explosion. Three-year-old Shawn Toups was injured as a
result. Evidence was also presented negating any claim that Shawn had been handling the
gasoline can located nearby or the lawn mower. He was not burned on the soles of his feet or
the palms of his hands. Is Sears liable to the Toups in strict product liability? Explain.
Answer: Strict Liability: Failure to Warn. Sears is liable. Judgment for Shawn Toups. In a
strict liability case the plaintiff must prove that the harm resulted from the condition of the