B-92
ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 22
WARRANTIES AND PRODUCT LIABILITY
22-1A. Express warranties
(Chapter 22—Pages 422–423)
The court granted Bungee’s motion for summary judgment. The court recognized that UCC 2–313(1)(b)
provides “[a]ny description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an
22-2A. Design defect
(Chapter 22—Pages 430–432)
The jury returned a verdict in favor of McCathern and awarded damages totaling more than $7.6 million.
22-3A. Express warranties
(Chapter 22—Pages 422–423 & 431–432)
The court granted Bungee’s motion for summary judgment. The court recognized that UCC 2–313(1)(b)
provides “[a]ny description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an
22-4A. Failure to warn
(Chapter 22—Pages 432–434)
After the trial, the jury returned a verdict for Bresnahan. Chrysler appealed. The state intermediate
22-5A. Product liability
(Chapter 22—Pages 431–432 & 435)
The court granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Buonanno appealed. The Rhode
B-94 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 22
thereby creating a genuine issue of material fact.” As for EPT, under the Restatement, there may be
liability if “the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by
22-6A. Liability to third parties
(Chapter 22—Page 435)
The court granted the motion to dismiss. The Stegemollers appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court,
which held that the defendants could be liable to Ramona as a bystander and directed the lower court
22-7A. Implied warranties
(Chapter 22—Pages 423–425)
The court held that Capital breached the implied warranty of merchantability and awarded Malul
damages that included the prices of the six melting doors. The court acknowledged that under the
22-8A. Product liability
(Chapter 22—Pages 431–432 & 436–437)
Brass Eagle filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted, finding that the gun did not
malfunction and performed exactly as Clark and Rico expected. The court also determined that Clark and
22-9A. Design defect
(Chapter 22—Pages 430–432)
A product is defective in design when it is in a defective condition that renders it unreasonably
dangerous. A product is unreasonably dangerous when it is dangerous to an extent beyond that which
22–10A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. The California Supreme Court held that Navegar could not be held negligent for making and
selling the TEC/DC–9. The court pointed out that “[t]o prevail on their negligence claim, plaintiffs must
show that Navegar owed them a legal duty, that it breached the duty, and that the breach was a
B-96 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 22
2. An answer to this question might depend on a weighing of the following factors considered in
some negligence cases to find an exception to the general requirement of duty: “the foreseeability of
3. Most Americans would probably agree that policy decisions regarding the liability of gun
manufacturers should be made by the legislative branch, which has the job of making the law. In part,
this may be in consideration of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The controversy