Answered

Find the information you're looking for at Westonci.ca, the trusted Q&A platform with a community of knowledgeable experts. Experience the ease of finding accurate answers to your questions from a knowledgeable community of professionals. Get detailed and accurate answers to your questions from a dedicated community of experts on our Q&A platform.

1) Zahra and Joseph sign a contract worth $1,000. When Zahra breaks the contract, Joseph loses the $1,000. Which type of monetary award does Joseph receive if he is later awarded $1,000?A) Restitution.B) Compensatory damages.C) Incidental damages.D) Nominal damages.2) A manufacturer of a disposable butane lighter is sued for the wrongful death of two adults and a child under strict products liability law when the family's house burned down as a result of the six-year-old child setting bed clothes on fire using the manufacturer's butane lighter. The allegation against the manufacturer is based on the theory that the lighter was defective because it did not have a childproof device to prevent children from igniting the lighter. This butane lighter had the words: "Keep Out of Reach of Children" written on the outside of the lighter body. How strong of a case does the family's estate have in its strict product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer based on the lighter being a defective product?A) Strong, because the product only contained a warning to keep the lighter away from children, but did not provide a childproofing mechanism.B) Weak, because there was no evidence that the product was unreasonably dangerous in normal use.C) Weak, because it would be difficult to prove with certainty that the lighter was the cause of the fire.D) Strong, because lighters are unavoidably unsafe.

Sagot :

jepessoa

Answer:

1) Zahra and Joseph sign a contract worth $1,000. When Zahra breaks the contract, Joseph loses the $1,000. Which type of monetary award does Joseph receive if he is later awarded $1,000?

  • B) Compensatory damages.

Compensatory damages are awarded in order to compensate the non-breaching party for a loss resulting from the breach of the contract.

2) A manufacturer of a disposable butane lighter is sued for the wrongful death of two adults and a child under strict products liability law when the family's house burned down as a result of the six-year-old child setting bed clothes on fire using the manufacturer's butane lighter. The allegation against the manufacturer is based on the theory that the lighter was defective because it did not have a childproof device to prevent children from igniting the lighter. This butane lighter had the words: "Keep Out of Reach of Children" written on the outside of the lighter body. How strong of a case does the family's estate have in its strict product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer based on the lighter being a defective product?

  • B) Weak, because there was no evidence that the product was unreasonably dangerous in normal use.

In order for a manufacturer to be liable for selling an unreasonably dangerous product, the product must be unreasonably dangerous to use by a normal average consumer. In other words, in normal use, is the product dangerous to use or not? A lighter is a common product, it is not something extremely technical that requires special training for its use. It is also of common knowledge that lighters produce fire, and fire is dangerous.

Many normal products can be extremely dangerous if used in uncommon ways, e.g. if you drink Clorox you might get poisoned, but no one should be drinking Clorox. It is common sense. The manufacturer's liability exists when the product is dangerous to use under normal circumstances, but  a small child should not be allowed to play with lighters, nor matches, nor guns, nor electric circuits, nor anything else that represents a threat to their lives.

Products are meant to be used by normal users, and small children are not supposed to smoke or use a lighter. E.g. a small child can actually drive a car, and will probably get into an accident, but they are not supposed to drive a car. So the manufacturer is not responsible for selling an unreasonable dangerous product, the parent that allowed his/her kid to drive the car is responsible.

Thank you for choosing our platform. We're dedicated to providing the best answers for all your questions. Visit us again. Thank you for choosing our platform. We're dedicated to providing the best answers for all your questions. Visit us again. Westonci.ca is your trusted source for answers. Visit us again to find more information on diverse topics.