Question

mal Pare charged by skill ding contractor himself bie's account. He stated ld manufacture kitchen shape of those made by He offered Trebic 6800 CASE 7 Kenya Marsh d not only provide h shall wished to purchase an automobile that only provide her with basic transportation her home to her place of employment, but wave a sporty appearance. She also wanted a with sufficient power to enable her to engage in to and from We has ticle with 5800 offer and brought 4.800 account. ents of the parties, nel racing and enquired abo prises. The vehicle was a used Wiometres. It had а неw car h son refused to do Awwad refused to provided suitable Salesman's kn e foundation, the d. The work that we wall siding, the 10. The dealer agrees to make the following repairs to the vehicle as a part of this sale: repair or replace water pump. 28 necessary Kenja was anxious to use the car in a local car rally the following day. She enquired if she might take the car immediately, then return it early the next week to have the water pump dealt with at that time. The dealer agreed, but cautioned her not to drive the car too hard until the pump was fixed. He also told her not to worry if she heard a slight popping noise from the pump Kenja paid for the car, then drove it home, a dis- tance of some 16 kilometres. Along the way she need what she described as a "clangy" or "tiny" noise from the engine. However, she was not concerned about it, believing it to be the noise the dealer had described to her. The next morning, when she attempted to start the car, the engine made a number of "clangy" sounds, then stopped. A mechanic who came to her home in response to her call examined the engine and informed her that the noise came from the engine bearings. He indicated that the engine had been seriously damaged and could cost up to $2,000 to repair Kenja immediately informed the automobile dealer that she wished to have her money back. When the dealer refused, she brought an action for rescission of the agreement. At the trial, an expert testified that the problem was indeed a breakdown of the engine bear ings, something that could occur in only a few minutes if insufficient oil was supplied to them. There was no evidence to indicate that the damage was in any way related to the water pump. Discuss the nature of Kenja's claim, as well as the possible defences to it. Render a decision. visited a local dealer in imported automobiles wired about a sports sedan displayed on the s. The salesman on duty informed her that the I was a used car that had been driven only 12.000 stres. It had been purchased the year before as w car by a customer who then traded it in for a Star model of the current years production. To the man's knowledge, it was a "good car" Since it had Jurbo-charged engine, the policy of the company was in sell it "as is, without a warranty of any kind. After a careful inspection of the car, kenja asked The Sales salesman to start the engine, in order for her to determine the condition of the turbo-charger. The sales man did so, and, after running the engine for a few moments at various engine speeds, he shut it down. He offered Kenja a test drive, but at that point she noticed a coolant leak at the engine water pump. The sales- man examined the pump. He then stated that the water pump would be repaired or replaced if necessary, if she wished to buy the car. Kenja said she would think about the purchase overnight and contact the salesman the next day if she was still interested. Kenja returned the next day. She informed the sales man that she was prepared to purchase the automobile if the dealer would repair the water pump and take $500 less than the advertised price of $24,000. With some reluctance, the dealer agreed to sell the car to her, and a written agreement of sale was prepared that contained the following terms: 9. It is expressly agreed that used goods are not warranted by the dealer as to year, make, model, or otherwise unless so stated in writing, nd the nature of ate the possible the courts. "heel Trucking breakdown, in the dealer turned. C.K. Co decided for a return heel Truck- rs Ltd.

Question if business law and i want full explanation from the side of defense and plaintiffs..Please.

This question is of Business Law...A case of comtact and remedies ..I want a 1 page explaintion from the side of defense.

Answer 1

A contract can be considered valid if it has the following components:

• Offer
• Acceptance
• Intention to create legal relationship between the involved parties
• Consideration
• Competency and capacity

If the contract is valid, then it can be legally enforced.

In the given case, Kenja had made an offer to buy a used car for $23500 provided the dealer got the water pump repaired by himself. Kenja knew about the condition of the car and still showed interest in buying the same. The dealer had not hid anything about the car from Kenja. He had even offered a test drive to her but Kenja could not do the same as there was a coolant leak in the water pump of the car’s engine. However, she could have taken a test drive, the next day. But again, Kenja did not consider it important and hence did not avail it.

This case also talks about product liability. Product liability is the mechanism which puts the onus and total responsibility of a defective product bought by a consumer, on the manufacturer or the seller of the product. The basic expectations of the consumer must be met by the product of the manufacturer or seller. Due to this mechanism, the seller or the manufacturer of the product will be held liable for any kind of injury or accident caused by the product, to the consumer.

Three major types of product liability are:

• Breach of warranty: Usually a product is sold with a warranty by the seller or the manufacturer that the product will function well for a stipulated time period. If the product fails to do the same, then it is considered to be a breach of warranty.
• Negligence: If the product is not meeting the standard performance expectations of the consumers due to some negligence caused during its manufacturing, then the manufacturer or seller of the product can be sued by the consumer under the tort of negligence.
• Strict liability: In the case of any kind of product performance failure, the consumer can raise a strict liability tort. All the stakeholders involved in the production of the product, will be held responsible and can be sued.

However, this case is entirely different. The product under consideration is a used good. When Kenja had agreed to buy the sedan, she had signed a written agreement with the automobile dealer. In the agreement it was clearly stated that the used car will not have any warranty from the dealer. The dealer had agreed to make certain repairs and he had done the same, as was promised. Both the parties were required to abide by the terms and conditions stated in the contract. It was expressly stated and agreed that the used goods are not warranted by the dealer. Kenja was anxious to take the car with her, the next day for a car rally, ignoring the water pump leakage problem. This shows the negligence on part of Kenja. The dealer had cautioned her about the drive conditions but Kenja did not pay heed to it and ultimately the engine of the car got damaged.

In my views, Kenja’s claim that the engine was damaged and she wanted her money back is invalid. The dealer had never promised about effective performance of the used car’s parts. Moreover dealer had cautioned her not to drive the car too hard. The dealer was also ready to replace or repair the water pump, but Kenja procrastinated the same for a later date as she was quite eager to participate in a car rally. Hence dealer can’t be blamed for the non-performance of the car. This is not a case of product liability or breach of warranty. Instead a negligence tort can be filed against Kenja as she showed interest to buy and drive the damaged car and postponed the water pump repairing to a later date. Hence the claims of Kenja stand invalid.