Case: Product Liability

Submitted By daviddsj
Words: 1056
Pages: 5

Essay No. 1. If Buyer wishes to bring an action on behalf of her minor Child to recover for damages that Child sustained as a result of this incident, what will be the probable outcome in a traditional U.C.C. jurisdiction if she assets a claim based upon breach of an implied warranty of merchantability under U.C.C. § 2-314 against ClogCo? (i.e., thoroughly discuss ClogCo's potential liability under U.C.C. § 2-314 for Child's injuries by considering each element of Buyer's alleged cause of action, as well as any other appropriate arguments or defenses that might be asserted by either party).

Product Liability
Module 4 Essay

Whether a minor Child (age 10 years) can assert a claim based upon breach of an

implied warranty of merchantability under U.C.C. § 2-314 for damages that he/s sustained after

eating leftovers stored in a Clog-Buster container-containing caustic residue, unknown to same?

The implied warranty of merchantability requires that the product and its container meet certain minimum standards of quality, chiefly that the product be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are sold (U.C.C. § 2-314). This requirement includes a standard of reasonable safety.The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose imposes a similar requirement in cases in which the seller knows or has reason to know of a particular purpose for which the goods are required and in which the buyer is relying on the seller to select or furnish suitable goods. The seller then warrants that the goods are fit for that particular purpose (U.C.C. § 2-315). This warranty provides that any seller who is a merchant selling goods of that kind impliedly warrants that the goods are merchantable. The statute defines “merchantable” to require that the goods (a) “pass without objection in the trade under the contract description,” (b) be of “fair average quality within the description,” (c) be “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used,” (d) “run . . . of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit,” (e) be
“adequately contained, packaged and labeled as the agreement may require,” and (f) “conform to the promises or affirmations on the container or label.” The elements of a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under §2-314 are as follow: a. There was a sale of goods; b.

The seller was a merchant with respect to goods of that kind; c. The goods were not

“merchantable” at the time of sale; and d. An economic loss or personal injury occurred as a

result of the breach of warranty. Here, the Buyer purchased a container of Clog-Buster at

a local retail supermarket, named Grocery Co., in order to unstop the drain in her kitchen sink.

There is no question that Grocery Company (the seller) was the merchant of the product- Clog

Buster in this case.

Moreover, the highly-concentrated Clog-Buster product was packaged and sold in

clear plastic pint containers, each capped with a removable tightly-fitting plastic lid which could

be snapped firmly into place. Glued around each of the circular plastic containers was an

attractive paper label that included ClogCo's well-known company logo, along with specific

"INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE." Also conspicuously printed on each Clog-Buster label was a

"WARNING" that prohibited "any direct contact with the caustic contents" of the product, and

which expressly cautioned against allowing the product to contact "exposed skin, hair, or eyes."

This label also warned against "ingesting" the product. When, as here, the seller sells goods in

the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract

are of merchantable quality. In other words, the goods must be as fit for the purpose or purposes

for which goods of that kind are commonly bought as it is reasonable to