Explain whether TAI should prevail against Northern in a suit claiming (c) breach of express warranty.

Explain whether TAI should prevail against Northern in a suit claiming (c) breach of express warranty.

Category:
0
0

Trans-Aire International, Inc. (TAI) converts ordinary automotive vans into recreational vehicles. TAI had been installing carpet and ceiling fabrics in the converted vans with an adhesive made by the 3M Company. Unfortunately, during the hot summer months, the 3M adhesive would often fail to hold the carpet and fabrics in place. TAI contacted Northern Adhesive Company (Northern), seeking a “suitable” product to replace the 3M adhesive. Northern sent samples of several adhesives, commenting that hopefully one or more “might be applicable.” Northern also informed TAI that one of the samples, Adhesive 7448, was a “match” for the 3M adhesive. After testing all the samples under cool plant conditions, TAI’s chief engineer determined that Adhesive 7448 was better than the 3M adhesive. When TAI’s president asked if the new adhesive should be tested under summer-like conditions, TAI’s chief engineer responded that it was unnecessary to do so. The president then asked if Adhesive 7448 came with any warranties. A Northern representative stated that there were no warranties, except that the orders shipped would be identical to the sample. After converting more than five hundred vans using Adhesive 7448, TAI became aware that high summer temperatures were causing the new adhesive to fail. Explain whether TAI should prevail against Northern in a suit claiming (a) breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

Trans-Aire International, Inc. (TAI) converts ordinary automotive vans into recreational vehicles. TAI had been installing carpet and ceiling fabrics in the converted vans with an adhesive made by the 3M Company. Unfortunately, during the hot summer months, the 3M adhesive would often fail to hold the carpet and fabrics in place. TAI contacted Northern Adhesive Company (Northern), seeking a “suitable” product to replace the 3M adhesive. Northern sent samples of several adhesives, commenting that hopefully one or more “might be applicable.” Northern also informed TAI that one of the samples, Adhesive 7448, was a “match” for the 3M adhesive. After testing all the samples under cool plant conditions, TAI’s chief engineer determined that Adhesive 7448 was better than the 3M adhesive. When TAI’s president asked if the new adhesive should be tested under summer-like conditions, TAI’s chief engineer responded that it was unnecessary to do so. The president then asked if Adhesive 7448 came with any warranties. A Northern representative stated that there were no warranties, except that the orders shipped would be identical to the sample. After converting more than five hundred vans using Adhesive 7448, TAI became aware that high summer temperatures were causing the new adhesive to fail. Explain whether TAI should prevail against Northern in a suit claiming (b) breach of an implied warranty of merchantability.

Trans-Aire International, Inc. (TAI) converts ordinary automotive vans into recreational vehicles. TAI had been installing carpet and ceiling fabrics in the converted vans with an adhesive made by the 3M Company. Unfortunately, during the hot summer months, the 3M adhesive would often fail to hold the carpet and fabrics in place. TAI contacted Northern Adhesive Company (Northern), seeking a “suitable” product to replace the 3M adhesive. Northern sent samples of several adhesives, commenting that hopefully one or more “might be applicable.” Northern also informed TAI that one of the samples, Adhesive 7448, was a “match” for the 3M adhesive. After testing all the samples under cool plant conditions, TAI’s chief engineer determined that Adhesive 7448 was better than the 3M adhesive. When TAI’s president asked if the new adhesive should be tested under summer-like conditions, TAI’s chief engineer responded that it was unnecessary to do so. The president then asked if Adhesive 7448 came with any warranties. A Northern representative stated that there were no warranties, except that the orders shipped would be identical to the sample. After converting more than five hundred vans using Adhesive 7448, TAI became aware that high summer temperatures were causing the new adhesive to fail. Explain whether TAI should prevail against Northern in a suit claiming (c) breach of express warranty.

Answer and ExplanationSolution by a verified expert
Explanation As per the Universal Commercial Code (UCC), if a purchaser has scrutinized the goods or sample as per their wish or denied scrutinizing the goods before entering into a contract, there...Explanation It was the independent decision of Company TAI to purchase the goods. It was Company TAI's Professional E's fault as they did not inspect the samples properly and gave an order for fur...Explanation Individual N made no declaration or promises when they supplied samples to Company TAI. At the most, Individual N declared that adhesive 7448 was similar to the 3M adhesive, which in f...

Explanation

As per the Universal Commercial Code (UCC), if a purchaser has scrutinized the goods or sample as per their wish or denied scrutinizing the goods before entering into a contract, there is no implied warranty with the consideration of deficiency, which needs to be disclosed in these situation as per the needs of an inspection. Company TAI, before entering a contract with the Company NA, inspected all the items that needed installing. Company TAI even provided every detail about the samples as well as the warranties given by the company. Company TAI's Professional E did not test all the samples effectively. In this case, there would be no implied warranty of health as a specific motive is responsible for the revoke of the contract. This is because faults have been found in the products after inspection.

Verified Answer

The reason for revoke is not the implied warranty of health for a specific motive.

Explanation

It was the independent decision of Company TAI to purchase the goods. It was Company TAI's Professional E's fault as they did not inspect the samples properly and gave an order for further execution of the contract only to realize the fault later.

Verified Answer

Company TAI cannot sue against Individual N because of revoke of an implied warranty.

Explanation

Individual N made no declaration or promises when they supplied samples to Company TAI. At the most, Individual N declared that adhesive 7448 was similar to the 3M adhesive, which in fact was found to be accurate.

Verified Answer

Individual N did not revoke for express warranty.

Purchase this answer to view it.
Login or register for free to purchase this solution with PayPal or credit cards securely


Get help with your essays and assignments

Order custom essays from top writers and get a professional paper delivered to your email on time.

Do my Paper