Since no one on either side had noticed the letters except the one witness, the Dufords hastily changed their claim to that of inadequacy of the marking. Who will prevail? Why?

Category:

Since no one on either side had noticed the letters except the one witness, the Dufords hastily changed their claim to that of inadequacy of the marking. Who will prevail? Why?

0
0

Raymond and Sandra Duford purchased a wood-burning stove from Sears. The stove was manufactured by Preway, Inc. At trial, it was shown that Raymond had inadvertently installed the section of the chimney pipe that went through the roof upside down, and all parties agreed that such improper installation caused a fire that had destroyed the Dufords’ house. At trial, the Dufords alleged, and Preway admitted, that there were no markings on the pipe indicating “which end was up.” An expert for the Dufords then testified that the simple precaution of an embossed marking would have been satisfactory. Later, to the amazement of all the parties, a witness for Preway pointed out that the actual pipe in question had been marked with embossed letters. The pipe in fact had tiny letters spelling “UP” with two arrows pointed in the proper direction. Since no one on either side had noticed the letters except the one witness, the Dufords hastily changed their claim to that of inadequacy of the marking. Who will prevail? Why?

Explanation & AnswerSolution by a verified expert

Explanation

The verdict that is provided by the court is not correct because the design of the pipe is defective and the manufacturer is required to be held liable to pay damages to Individual D.
Company P has not mentioned the proper way of using the product, risk associated with the use, and other things; Company P has only stated the upward direction of the placement of the product. Company P has also not insisted buyer to examine the product before purchasing.
The damage done to Individual D is higher in value than Company P and it is not caused by the negligence of Individual D and proper evidence is also present in the case.

Sample Response

Individual D's contention is correct because Company P is responsible to pay the damages to the injured party since the pipe design is defective and dangerous. Besides that, the breach of the implied warranty is also involved.

Purchase this answer to view it. $5
Login/Sign up for free, load your wallet instantly using PayPal or cards and purchase this solution to view it.


Get Help With Your Assignments

Place your order now and get a quality plagiarism-free paper via email.

Write My Paper For Me