CANVAS QUIZZES ONLY BULL3310 Exam 2

Comprehensive practice flashcards defining essential legal terminology across Torts, Sales Warranties, Employment Law, Real Property, and Trusts and Estates from the BUL3310 Exam 2 module question bank.

[Ch 8] The rule that permits a jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain events is: A. proximate cause B. res ipsa loquitur C. comparative negligence D. causation in fact

res ipsa loquitur [Notes] Why: "The thing speaks for itself": the event itself lets the jury infer negligence and causation.

[Ch 8] Which of the following is NOT considered in determining the application of the reasonable person standard? A. Physical disability B. Mental disability C. Emergency circumstances D. Superior skill or knowledge

Mental disability [Notes] Why: The standard adjusts for physical disability, emergencies, and superior skill, but not for mental disability.

[Ch 8] Which of the following is NOT correct with respect to the reasonable person standard? A. It makes allowance for physical disability. B. It considers whether the person has specialized skill or training. C. It applies an individualized test to children that takes into consideration the child's age, background, and experience. D. It makes allowance for mental disability.

It makes allowance for mental disability. [Notes] Why: Same rule as above, flipped: mental disability is not taken into account.

[Ch 8] Seventeen-year-old Rowan just got a driver's license, drives a little too fast, and rear-ends a car stopped at a stop sign. A. Rowan is engaging in an adult activity and will be held to the same standard as an adult in most of the states. B. Rowan is responsible only if driving for more than one year. C. Rowan's parents are responsible for any torts Rowan commits. D. Rowan is a minor and will have no responsibility for torts committed.

Rowan is engaging in an adult activity and will be held to the same standard as an adult in most of the states. [Notes] Why: Minors doing adult activities like driving are held to the adult standard.

[Ch 8] Oscar, driving too fast, hits an unmarked truck carrying explosives. The explosion shatters glass in a building a block away, injuring Isha inside. Jesse, walking near the collision, is seriously burned. In this case: A. neither Isha nor Jesse are within the zone of danger of the collision. B. both Isha and Jesse are within the zone of danger of the collision. C. Oscar's negligent driving is the proximate cause of Isha's injury. D. Oscar's negligent driving is the proximate cause of Jesse's injury.

Oscar's negligent driving is the proximate cause of Jesse's injury. [Notes] Why: Jesse was nearby, inside the zone of foreseeable danger; Isha, a block away, was not.

[Ch 8] Marin is sailing and hears a young person crying for help in the lake. Which of the following is true? A. Marin MUST help the child if the child is a family member. B. Marin MUST help the child if Marin begins to rescue the child and in doing so moves to a position farther from the shore. C. Marin must help the child ONLY if acquainted with the child. D. Marin MUST help the child or be liable for negligence.

Marin MUST help the child if Marin begins to rescue the child and in doing so moves to a position farther from the shore. [Notes] Why: There is generally no duty to rescue, but once you start a rescue you cannot leave the person worse off.

[Ch 8] Conduct by a plaintiff that falls below the standard for their own protection and that cooperates with the defendant's negligence in bringing about the plaintiff's harm is: A. res ipsa loquitur B. voluntary assumption of the risk C. comparative negligence D. contributory negligence

contributory negligence [Notes] Why: This is the definition of contributory negligence.

[Ch 8] Cal carefully sprays pesticide on a windless day, but some drifts onto the neighbor's land and kills the neighbor's chickens. What is the likely result? A. Cal is not liable because of contributory negligence. B. Cal is not liable because the neighbor assumed the risk by placing the feed so close to the fence. C. Cal is not liable because Cal was not negligent in the spraying operation. D. Cal is liable because spraying pesticides is an abnormally dangerous activity.

Cal is liable because spraying pesticides is an abnormally dangerous activity. [Notes] Why: Abnormally dangerous activities create strict liability; being careful does not matter.

[Ch 8] The duty of a possessor of land to persons who come on the land usually depends on whether those persons are: A. fiduciaries B. involved in abnormally dangerous activities C. reasonable persons D. invitees, trespassers, or licensees

invitees, trespassers, or licensees [Notes] Why: Landowner duties depend on the visitor's status.

[Ch 8] The duty of a possessor of land to persons who come on the land usually depends on the status of those persons. Choose two answers. A. Landowners B. Invitees C. Reasonable persons D. Trespassers

Invitees; Trespassers [Notes] Why: These are visitor statuses (along with licensees).

[Ch 8] Which of the following is an action based on strict liability? Choose two answers. A. A person is injured by blasting operations while driving on a highway. B. A person is injured by a friend's 150-pound sheepdog who has a propensity to jump enthusiastically on visitors. C. While strolling uninvited on another's land, an individual falls into a well that was not properly marked. D. A child is injured while playing with a hammer under a caregiver's supervision.

Blasting operations; The sheepdog with a known propensity [Notes] Why: Blasting is abnormally dangerous; an owner who knows of an animal's dangerous propensity is strictly liable.

[Ch 8] Chris, driving with defective brakes, hits Maram, who jumped into the street five feet in front of the car. Chris could not have avoided her. What is Chris's best defense? A. Maram illegally crossed in the middle of the street, which was a superseding cause of the accident. B. Chris was lawfully seeking a parking place and did not see Maram jump out. C. Maram had a mental deficiency. D. Chris was not negligent because Chris had no statutory duty to keep vehicle brakes in top condition.

Maram illegally crossed in the middle of the street, which was a superseding cause of the accident. [Check] Why: Even good brakes would not have stopped the car (no but-for cause), and superseding cause is the closest option to that. Your notes do not cover this exact situation, so check it against lecture.

[Ch 8] Perry is injured on the job and files a workers' compensation claim. The employer's liability under the statute is: A. strict B. comparative C. contributory D. negligence per se

strict [Notes] Why: Workers' compensation is a form of strict liability.

[Ch 8] Wyatt backs into an uncovered grill Sal left out and burns his feet. In a modified comparative negligence state, who is liable? A. If Sal is found negligent, Sal is liable for a proportionate share of Wyatt's injuries unless Wyatt's negligence was as great as or greater than Sal's. B. Sal is liable for ALL of Wyatt's injuries. C. Sal is liable for Wyatt's injuries only if Wyatt was more negligent than Sal. D. Sal is not liable for any of Wyatt's injuries.

If Sal is found negligent, Sal is liable for a proportionate share of Wyatt's injuries unless Wyatt's negligence was as great as or greater than Sal's. [Notes] Why: Modified comparative negligence: damages are reduced by the plaintiff's share, and recovery is barred once the plaintiff's fault reaches the defendant's.

[Ch 8] To which of the following does a property owner owe the highest duty of care? A. A stranded motorist who comes onto the property to seek help B. A neighbor who comes over uninvited to use a backyard lounge chair C. A client who has come to an accountant's office in a building the accountant owns D. A social guest and close friend who have come to the house for a party

A client who has come to an accountant's office in a building the accountant owns [Notes] Why: The client is an invitee (business visitor), who is owed the highest duty.

[Ch 8] A family visits campus because one of the children is interested in applying. Identify the status of the family members. Choose two answers. A. Business visitors B. Invitees C. Licensees D. Trespassers

Business visitors; Invitees [Notes] Why: They are there for a purpose connected to the school's business, so they are invitees (business visitors).

[Ch 8] Negligence consists of five elements. Choose two answers. A. Assumption of risk B. Comparative negligence C. Proximate cause D. Breach

Breach; Proximate cause [Notes] Why: Assumption of risk and comparative negligence are defenses, not elements.

[Ch 8] A supermarket's large glass front door is well lighted and plainly visible. Nel mistakes it for an open doorway, walks into it, and is injured. The store: A. is not liable to Nel. B. is strictly liable to Nel. C. is liable under res ipsa loquitur. D. has no duty to Nel.

is not liable to Nel. [Notes] Why: The store owes Nel a duty, but did not breach it; the door was obvious.

[Ch 8] Several defenses to negligence are available to defendants. Choose two answers. A. Strict liability B. Assumption of risk C. Comparative negligence D. Negligence per se

Assumption of risk; Comparative negligence [Notes] Why: These are defenses; the other two are bases for liability.

[Ch 8] River's driveway has potholes that have thrown River off a bike several times. If River invites biking friends for a barbecue, what must River do to escape liability? A. Post signs saying "slow to 15 mph." B. Repair the potholes. C. Telephone friends to warn them about the potholes. D. Do nothing because River owes no duty to biking friends.

Telephone friends to warn them about the potholes. [Notes] Why: Social guests are licensees; the owner must warn them of known dangers but does not have to fix them.

[Ch 8] In which of the following situations would a court be likely to find an affirmative duty to act? A. Where an airline attendant sees one passenger threaten another passenger. B. All of these situations present an affirmative duty to act. C. Where the driver of a car sees a 2-year-old toddler wandering in the middle of a busy street. D. Where a pedestrian witnesses an auto accident in which one of the drivers is injured.

Where an airline attendant sees one passenger threaten another passenger. [Notes] Why: A special relationship (carrier and passenger) creates a duty to act; strangers generally have none.

[Ch 8] Which of the following statements is true? A. A plaintiff must prove that the defendant does not have affirmative defenses that would excuse the defendant's conduct. B. A plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligent conduct proximately caused harm to a legally protected interest. C. Defendants have the burden of proof that their negligent conduct did not proximately cause harm. D. Negligent conduct that is the proximate cause of offensive physical contact results in liability based on social policy.

A plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligent conduct proximately caused harm to a legally protected interest. [Notes] Why: The plaintiff carries the burden on the elements, including proximate cause and harm.

[Ch 8] Which of the following is a defense that could be raised in an action based on strict liability? A. While strolling uninvited on Ollie's land, Trey is injured by unmarked explosive stored on the land. B. The owner of a car signed a waiver of potential damages if choosing to park a vehicle in a blasting zone. C. A child played with a neighbor's pet raccoon that had escaped from its cage. The child teased the pet and was bitten. D. The plaintiff negligently failed to observe a sign on a highway warning of blasting operations and was injured.

The owner of a car signed a waiver of potential damages if choosing to park a vehicle in a blasting zone. [Notes] Why: Assumption of risk (here, an express waiver) is a defense to strict liability; ordinary contributory negligence is not.

[Ch 8] Devi, rushing a pregnant friend to the hospital, causes an accident that harms Pip, who was carefully walking on the sidewalk. Identify the true statements. Choose two answers. A. Devi's negligence must be assessed based on the standard of the reasonable ordinary driver. B. Devi's negligence must be assessed based on the standard of a reasonable person who drives an ambulance professionally, not that of ordinary drivers. C. Devi's negligence must be assessed taking into consideration the sudden and unexpected emergency, and therefore a more lenient interpretation is needed than in ordinary cases. D. Pip can invoke negligence per se because Devi likely violated a safety statute when rushing to the hospital.

Reasonable ordinary driver standard; Emergency is taken into consideration [Notes] Why: Devi is not a professional ambulance driver, and emergencies are factored into the reasonable person standard.

[Ch 8] Joey intentionally pushes Blair into a fence Sam negligently built around Sam's pool. The fence caves in and Blair nearly drowns. Under the Second Restatement, who is liable? A. Sam, because of Sam's negligent conduct B. Sam, because Joey's conduct would be foreseeable C. Sam and Joey, because they both contributed to the harm D. Joey, because of Joey's intentional intervening conduct

Joey, because of Joey's intentional intervening conduct [Notes] Why: Under the Second Restatement, an intentional push is a superseding cause that cuts off Sam's liability (same as Barbara shoving Gary into Carol's pit in your notes). The Third Restatement would instead ask if the push was within the risk.

[Ch 8] The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would permit the court to infer negligence in which of the following situations? A. A sign over a storefront fell on your head. B. A banana was on the ground and you stepped on it and fell. C. A can of peas fell off the shelf onto your foot.

A sign over a storefront fell on your head. [Notes] Why: Signs do not normally fall without negligence, and the store controlled it.

[Ch 8] Mason, a waiter, is injured when an unopened cola bottle explodes in his hand while he puts it in the cooler. If Mason sues the bottling company: A. Mason will win based on the last clear chance rule. B. Mason will probably win if the court allows the use of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. C. Mason will lose, because it will be impossible to prove that the bottle was over-pressurized by the bottler. D. Mason will lose, because the bottling company has no duty to Mason.

Mason will probably win if the court allows the use of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. [Notes] Why: Classic exploding-bottle res ipsa scenario.

[Ch 8] If a statute establishing a reasonable person standard of conduct applies, an unexcused violation of that statute that causes injury is: A. strict liability B. negligence per se C. res ipsa loquitur D. assumption of the risk

negligence per se [Notes] Why: Violating a safety statute is negligence per se.

[Ch 8] Which of the following statements regarding a landowner's liability to a trespasser is true? A. The landowner would have liability to a trespasser in all of these situations. B. A landowner next to a nursery school has an unfenced swimming pool and a trespassing child drowns is liable for injuries. C. A landowner on whose land a trespasser trips over some lawn furniture in an unlighted backyard is liable for injuries. D. The landowner who has rigged up a trap that injures a trespasser coming onto the property is liable for injuries.

The landowner who has rigged up a trap that injures a trespasser coming onto the property is liable for injuries. [Notes] Why: A landowner may not intentionally injure trespassers with traps. Your notes: no duty to keep land safe for adult trespassers, but no intentional or wanton injury.

[Ch 8] Jody's burning leaf blows into Duri's yard, lands on the lawn mower, which explodes and sets fire to the lawn furniture. Jody's best argument against liability would be: A. that the damage was not caused by the leaf but by the gasoline. B. that the leaf was not a substantial factor in causing the damage. C. that it was not foreseeable that the lawn mower would explode. D. res ipsa loquitur.

that it was not foreseeable that the lawn mower would explode. [Check] Why: Proximate cause turns on foreseeability. But your notes say the exact manner of harm does not need to be foreseeable if the conduct was a substantial factor, so this is a weak argument either way. Check against lecture.

[Ch 8] Cameron (speeding) hits Dee (jaywalking). The jury finds Cameron 60% negligent and Dee 40% negligent; Dee's damages are $10,000. Under comparative negligence, Dee will: A. recover $4,000. B. not recover anything. C. recover $6,000. D. recover $10,000.

recover $6,000. [Notes] Why: Damages are reduced by Dee's 40% share.

[Ch 8] Adya goes to Mateo's restaurant for dinner. Adya's status is that of: A. trespasser B. licensee C. public invitee D. business visitor

business visitor [Notes] Why: She is on the premises for a business purpose.

[Ch 8] True or False: In determining a defendant's liability for negligence, the defendant's superior skill or knowledge will be attributed in applying the reasonable person standard.

True [Notes]

[Ch 8] True or False: In all states, a 16-year-old who drives a car will not be held to the same standard of care as an adult.

False [Notes]

[Ch 8] True or False: A possessor of land is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against dangerous conditions they are unlikely to discover.

True [Notes]

[Ch 8] True or False: The lawful possessor of land is liable to adult trespassers for failure to maintain the land in a reasonably safe condition.

False [Notes]

[Ch 8] True or False: Workers' compensation is a form of strict liability.

True [Notes]

[Ch 8] True or False: If a defendant acts under emergency conditions, these conditions will be taken into account in applying the reasonable person standard.

True [Notes]

[Ch 8] True or False: While comparative negligence is generally not a defense in a strict liability case, contributory negligence generally is a successful defense.

False [Notes]

[Ch 8] True or False: A widely applied test for causation in fact is the "but-for" test.

True [Notes]

[Ch 8] True or False: A number of states have included social guests in the invitee category, although they have traditionally been labeled as licensees.

True [Notes]

[Ch 8] True or False: Teddy's eight-year-old child is shooting in the street with a .22 rifle. Teddy fails to take the gun away, and the child unintentionally shoots Tony. Teddy is liable to Tony.

True [Notes]

[Ch 8] True or False: The standard of conduct for a child is that of a reasonably careful person of the same age, intelligence, and experience under the circumstances.

True [Notes]

[Ch 8] True or False: In an established rule of torts, even someone who did not create a peril has a duty to take affirmative action to assist an imperiled person when there is little or no personal risk to the rescuer.

False [Notes]

[Ch 8] True or False: Compliance with a legislative enactment or administrative regulation does not prevent a finding of negligence if a reasonable person would have taken additional precautions.

True [Notes]

[Ch 8] True or False: A social guest is a public invitee.

False [Notes]

[Ch 8] True or False: In some instances, people may be held liable for injuries they have caused even though they have not acted intentionally or negligently.

True [Notes]

[Ch 24] Unlike an express warranty, an implied warranty is not found in the language of the sales contract. Identify the most important implied warranties. Choose two answers. A. Warranty of merchantability B. Warranty of fitness for a particular purpose C. Warranty of business purpose D. Warranty of ordinary use

Warranty of merchantability; Warranty of fitness for a particular purpose [Confirmed] Why: These are the two main implied warranties.

[Ch 24] Daisey purchased 100 flowerpots from a local merchant. Warranties not included in the contract but that exist by "operation of law" are: A. express warranties B. implied warranties C. quasi warranties D. exclusive warranties

implied warranties [Confirmed] Why: Implied warranties are imposed by operation of law.

[Ch 24] Implied warranties under the Code: A. continue the common law rule of caveat emptor. B. may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade. C. are a result of specific language in the sales contract. D. are intended to protect the seller rather than the buyer.

may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade. [Confirmed] Why: The Code expressly says so.

[Ch 24] An obligation of the merchant-seller that the goods are reasonably fit for the general purposes for which they are sold, and are of fair, average quality, is known as: A. an express warranty B. strict liability C. a warranty of merchantability D. the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose

a warranty of merchantability [Confirmed] Why: Ordinary purpose plus fair, average quality = merchantability.

[Ch 24] Which of the following is included within the Code definition of merchantability? A. Reasonably fit for all purposes for which the goods are used B. Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description C. In the case of secondhand goods, that they be of a quality that matches new goods of the same type D. Are of superior quality

Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description [Confirmed] Why: It is ordinary purposes (not all purposes) and fair, average quality (not superior).

[Ch 24] Which of the following would NOT be considered a breach of the warranty of merchantability in some jurisdictions? A. A stone in a can of vegetable soup B. A leaking plastic bottle containing bleach C. A piece of glass in a bottle of cola D. A cherry pit in a can of cherry pie filling

A cherry pit in a can of cherry pie filling [Confirmed] Why: A cherry pit is natural to the food, so some courts do not treat it as a breach.

[Ch 24] The warranty of fitness for a particular purpose: A. is an implied warranty that applies only to merchant sellers. B. only requires that an item doesn't work for the buyer's purpose. C. requires that the seller know that the buyer is relying on the seller's expertise in selecting a product for the buyer's specific purpose. D. requires no proof of reliance in a case for breach of warranty.

requires that the seller know that the buyer is relying on the seller's expertise in selecting a product for the buyer's specific purpose. [Confirmed] Why: It applies to any seller, and reliance is required.

[Ch 24] Lillian tells Neil, a shoe store owner, she is climbing Mount Everest and needs shoes for it. Neil recommends the X-9 boots, which fail, and she injures her foot. Can Lillian sue Neil? A. No, because Neil did not actually make specific promises about the X-9 boots. B. No, because mountain climbing is not the ordinary purpose for which these boots are typically used. C. No, because Neil did not know about the manufacturer's recommendation concerning the boots. D. Yes, because Lillian told Neil why she needed the boots and relied on his expertise in selection.

Yes, because Lillian told Neil why she needed the boots and relied on his expertise in selection. [Confirmed] Why: Fitness for a particular purpose.

[Ch 24] Kasey sells a barely used stair stepper to a friend, Lyden, for $100. It falls apart the first day, injuring Lyden's ankle. A. Lyden can sue Kasey for breach of the warranty of merchantability, because the stair stepper is not fit for its ordinary purpose. B. Lyden cannot sue Kasey for warranting that the stair stepper is reasonably fit for its ordinary purpose, because Kasey is not a merchant. C. Kasey, as the original buyer, can sue the manufacturer for breach of the warranty of merchantability. D. Lyden cannot sue Kasey, because they are not in privity of contract.

Lyden cannot sue Kasey for warranting that the stair stepper is reasonably fit for its ordinary purpose, because Kasey is not a merchant. [Confirmed] Why: Merchantability only applies to merchant sellers.

[Ch 24] Which of the following is not an express warranty? A. Restating facts or market figures about a product B. The seller's opinion of the value of goods C. A statement of the product specifications D. The opinion of an expert in a certain field regarding a product in that field

The seller's opinion of the value of goods [Confirmed] Why: Opinions of value are puffery; facts, specs, and expert opinions can be warranties.

[Ch 24] Alix buys a painting for $5,000 after the gallery manager says it is a genuine Leroy Neiman. It turns out to be a cheap copy worth $50. Riyad has breached: A. the warranty of merchantability. B. an express warranty to Alix that the painting is a Neiman work. C. no express warranties, because the statement was merely an opinion. D. an express warranty, the warranty of merchantability, and the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

an express warranty to Alix that the painting is a Neiman work. [Confirmed] Why: A statement of fact about the goods is an express warranty. ("All three" was marked wrong.)

[Ch 24] Marlen tells Leslie the stereo has quadraphonic speakers because a salesperson told Marlen so. Leslie buys it; it does not. Is Marlen liable for breach of warranty? A. No, because Marlen did not know the statement was false B. No, because Marlen did not promise Leslie that the speakers were quadraphonic C. Yes, because the statement was false D. Yes, because Marlen was not acting in good faith

Yes, because the statement was false [Confirmed] Why: Knowledge of falsity is not required for an express warranty.

[Ch 24] Mackenzie says the snow boots protect to 20 degrees below zero. At delivery, the box says they protect to 30 below. At 27 below, Rion gets frostbite. What is the result? A. No breach, because Mackenzie said 20 degrees below zero B. No breach, because Mackenzie is allowed to be wrong C. Breach, because the later express warranty is valid D. No breach, because Mackenzie's statement was merely opinion

Breach, because the later express warranty is valid [Confirmed] Why: Statements at delivery can become express warranties without new consideration.

[Ch 24] In an advertisement, Arun, Inc. says its gum is sugar-free. Jo, allergic to sugar, buys it and has a reaction; it contained a trace of sugar. Jo can most likely recover based on: A. a breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose B. a breach of an implied warranty of merchantability C. a breach of an express warranty D. failure to warn of hidden dangers

a breach of an express warranty [Confirmed] Why: Advertising statements of fact can be express warranties.

[Ch 24] The warranty of title for the sale of goods found in Article 2 of the Code: A. is labeled as an implied warranty. B. will apply regardless of whether it is provided for in the contract unless the parties have specifically excluded it or it is excluded by certain circumstances. C. may be excluded with the phrase "as is." D. may not be excluded or modified by the seller.

will apply regardless of whether it is provided for in the contract unless the parties have specifically excluded it or it is excluded by certain circumstances. [Confirmed] Why: It is not labeled implied, and "as is" does not exclude it.

[Ch 24] Identify the requirements that the language of a disclaimer must have to exclude an implied warranty of merchantability. Choose two answers. A. The disclaimer must be conspicuous. B. The disclaimer must appear directly on the product. C. The disclaimer must be signed by both parties. D. The disclaimer must mention merchantability.

Must be conspicuous; Must mention merchantability [Confirmed] Why: Both are required for a written disclaimer of merchantability.

[Ch 24] No implied warranty exists: A. if it is disclaimed in any manner. B. as to defects that the seller did not know about. C. if it applies to hidden defects that are not apparent upon examination. D. as to defects that an examination ought to have revealed, where the buyer examined the goods as fully as he desired or refused to examine the goods.

as to defects that an examination ought to have revealed, where the buyer examined the goods as fully as he desired or refused to examine the goods. [Confirmed] Why: Buyer examination rule.

[Ch 24] A buyer may be able to inspect the goods before entering into the contract. What are the legal consequences of an inspection? Choose two answers. A. The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose still applies to any defect. B. The buyer assumes the risk of using the product. C. The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose applies only to defects that the examination could not have revealed. D. The implied warranty of merchantability does not apply to defects that are apparent upon examination.

Fitness applies only to defects the examination could not have revealed; Merchantability does not apply to defects apparent upon examination [Confirmed] Why: Inspection limits both implied warranties for obvious defects.

[Ch 24] A written contract for a camera says the seller warrants it is free of defects, with a disclaimer of liability for any repairs needed because of defects. Which statements are accurate? Choose two answers. A. The disclaimer renders inoperative the warranty. B. The contract includes an express warranty and a liability disclaimer. C. The contract includes an express disclaimer and a liability warranty. D. The warranty renders inoperative the disclaimer.

Includes an express warranty and a liability disclaimer; The warranty renders inoperative the disclaimer [Confirmed] Why: A seller cannot give an express warranty and then disclaim it.

[Ch 24] When a buyer has accepted goods that are not as warranted, the buyer is barred from any remedy under what circumstances? Choose two answers. A. The buyer uses the goods before discovering that the goods are not as warranted. B. The buyer uses the goods after discovering that the goods are not as warranted. C. The buyer fails to notify the seller of any breach immediately after discovering it. D. The buyer fails to notify the seller of any breach within a reasonable time after discovering it.

Uses the goods after discovering; Fails to notify within a reasonable time [Confirmed] Why: Notice must be within a reasonable time, not immediately.

[Ch 24] Which of the following should the buyer be able to prove when bringing a breach of warranty action? Choose two answers. A. A warranty was defective in some parts. B. Notice of the breach was given to the seller. C. The buyer's acknowledgment of the warranty at the time of purchase. D. A warranty existed.

Notice of the breach was given; A warranty existed [Confirmed] Why: Part of what the buyer must prove in a warranty action.

[Ch 24] The liability of manufacturers and other sellers for a defective product may be based on all but which of the following? A. Negligence and misrepresentation B. Strict liability in tort C. Violation of a statutory duty D. Warranty and criminal liability

Warranty and criminal liability [Confirmed] Why: Criminal liability is not one of the listed bases.

[Ch 24] Under the doctrine of strict liability, liability is: A. imposed only for intentional wrongful acts. B. based on "obvious" fault of the defendant. C. not based on the actor's negligence or intent to harm. D. based on the dangers posed by the product.

based on the dangers posed by the product. [Confirmed] Why: Tricky: "not based on negligence or intent" was marked wrong three times. The quiz wants the product-focused answer.

[Ch 24] Identify the reasons asserted in support of imposing strict liability in tort on manufacturers and assemblers. Choose two answers. A. Lawsuits are the most efficient and speedy way to allocate the intended costs of industrialization. B. Products are becoming increasingly dangerous, and consumers may lose trust in mass production. C. Manufacturers use wholesalers and retailers merely as conduits and should not avoid liability simply because they have no contract with the user. D. Consumers should be given maximum protection against dangerous defects in products.

Manufacturers use retailers merely as conduits; Consumers should be given maximum protection [Confirmed] Why: These match the stated policy reasons.

[Ch 24] Identify the correct statements concerning Section 402A and the requirements of strict liability. Choose two answers. A. Strict liability benefits occasional buyers. B. Strict liability is imposed on merchants. C. Strict liability is imposed on occasional sellers. D. Strict liability is imposed when new but not used goods are sold.

Imposed on merchants; Benefits occasional buyers [Confirmed] Why: It does not apply to occasional sellers, and many states apply it to used goods too.

[Ch 24] Product liability exists if the: A. consumer misuses the product. B. product reaches the consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. C. consumer alters the product before he or she uses it. D. consumer takes the product gratuitously.

product reaches the consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. [Confirmed] Why: A Section 402A requirement.

[Ch 24] In a strict liability suit under Section 402A, which fact, if proved, would prevent liability? A. The user did not buy the product from the seller. B. The seller exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product. C. The condition of the product was altered between the time of sale and the time it reached the user. D. The seller did not know that the product was poorly designed.

The condition of the product was altered between the time of sale and the time it reached the user. [Confirmed] Why: Substantial change after sale defeats 402A liability.

[Ch 24] Which of the following is generally a defense to a claim under Section 402A (strict tort liability)? A. Misuse or abuse of the product B. Insufficient warnings C. Contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff D. Lack of knowledge of a product's dangerousness

Misuse or abuse of the product [Confirmed] Why: Contributory negligence is generally NOT a defense to strict liability.

[Ch 24] Which of the following products would impose strict liability in tort under Section 402A? A. 150-proof Virgin Island rum B. Popcorn containing large amounts of genuine butter C. A chain saw sold with the safety shielding removed D. A sports car capable of speeds in excess of 150 MPH

A chain saw sold with the safety shielding removed [Confirmed] Why: It must be defective and unreasonably dangerous, beyond what an ordinary consumer expects.

[Ch 24] Greyson sells encyclopedias. To make a sale, he buys a bookcase and sells it to Marret with the books. Protruding nails cut Marret. Can Marret sue Greyson under strict liability? A. No, because Marret was not a true consumer under Section 402A B. Yes, because the bookcase was defective C. No, because Greyson is not a seller under Section 402A D. Yes, because the bookcase was in an unreasonably dangerous condition

No, because Greyson is not a seller under Section 402A [Confirmed] Why: He is not in the business of selling bookcases; 402A does not cover occasional sellers.

[Ch 24] Jan sells defective toys. A child is injured playing with a toy received as a birthday present. Which is true? A. Jan can only be held liable if aware that the toy was defective. B. Jan is not liable because the toy was received as a gift. C. Jan is not liable because retailers do not share the duty to warn consumers. D. Jan is liable as long as nobody modified the product.

Jan is liable as long as nobody modified the product. [Confirmed] Why: No privity needed, and knowledge does not matter.

[Ch 24] Elian modifies his new snowmobile's spark plugs to make it more powerful. It tips over and he is burned by a spark plug. Suing the manufacturer for strict liability, Elian: A. will likely lose the suit, because the machine has been altered since its manufacture. B. cannot sue the manufacturer, because horizontal privity is lacking. C. will likely win the suit, because of the faulty design of the snowmobile. D. has assumed the risk of using the snowmobile.

will likely lose the suit, because the machine has been altered since its manufacture. [Confirmed] Why: Subsequent alteration.

[Ch 24] A manufacturer of pain-relieving tablets left off a tamperproof safety cap. The buyer's infant daughter gets into the bottle and swallows several tablets. The strongest grounds for a lawsuit: A. Product misuse B. Packaging defect C. Lack of proper warnings D. Warranty of merchantability

Packaging defect [Confirmed] Why: The missing safety cap is a packaging defect.

[Ch 24] True or False: The word "merchantability" must be mentioned in a disclaimer of an implied warranty of merchantability.

True [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: The Federal Trade Commission administers the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

True [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: Berry buys a car "as is." If the engine blows up the next day, Berry can sue the dealer for breach of the implied warranty of fitness.

False [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: In a warranty action, the seller has the burden of proving defenses based on the buyer's conduct.

True [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: Jasmyn buys a used dryer from a neighbor who is a landscaper. It bursts into flames. The seller is in breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

False [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: Fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability are implied warranties that apply only to sales by merchants.

False [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: Article 2A, analogous to Article 2's warranty of title, protects the lessee's right to possession and use of the goods from claims arising from an act or omission of the lessor.

True [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: Misuse or abuse of the product is a defense to an action brought under Section 402A.

True [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a seller who makes a written warranty cannot disclaim any implied warranty.

True [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: If the seller of goods is an expert and gives an opinion about the goods, the seller may be liable for breach of warranty.

True [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: Both design and manufacturing defects can subject a manufacturer or seller to products liability.

True [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act was enacted to protect purchasers of consumer goods.

True [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: Under Alternative A of the Code's horizontal privity provision, a corporation may bring a case against the manufacturer for breach of the warranty of merchantability.

False [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: Lupe's new lawn mower came with no instruction book and no warning labels near dangerous parts. If injured, Lupe can claim the product is defective.

True [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: Statements in advertisements and catalogs do not constitute express warranties.

False [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: Bailey buys a television set that turns out to be stolen. Bailey can sue the seller for breach of warranty.

True [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: Section 402A of the Restatement applies only if the defective product is unreasonably dangerous.

True [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: Horizontal privity involves remote sellers within the chain of distribution.

False [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: The early common law required privity of contract before a plaintiff could sue for breach of warranty.

True [Confirmed]

[Ch 24] True or False: Statutes of repose were enacted to give consumers more rights against large manufacturers.

False [Confirmed]