ipl-logo

Case Study: Squish La Fish Vs. Thomco Specialty Products

686 Words3 Pages

Facts of the Case In Squish La Fish v. Thomco Specialty Products, Squish patented a product called Tuna Squeeze that would squeeze the oil and water from tuna cans. Squish hired the services of ProPack who would affix the product with an adhesive to the cardboard “point of purchase” cards. ProPack in turn sought the advice of Thomco Specialty Products representative to provide an adherent that would make the product stick to the cardboard cards, but not stick to the product itself. The Thomco representative suggested a 3M product called Extra High Tack Adhesive Transfer. Thomco told ProPack that the adhesive would wash off the Tuna Squeeze easily in warm water. In was discovered after 8,600 units had been produced that the distributor was …show more content…

It may have been a careless, unintended error. Even if the error was unintended, Thomco could still be held liable. The law helps to provide the following three-part approach in order to decide liability in a case such as Squish v. Thomco:
(1) The negligent supply of false information to foreseeable persons, known or unknown; (2) such persons’ reasonable reliance upon that false information; and (3) economic injury approximately resulting from such reliance. (Meiners, 154)
As negligent misrepresentation is a tort of deceit, it would have to be established based on these guidelines that the deceit was in fact consummated. There is no doubt that Squish suffered economic injury, but it was not established that the other actions caused the result of the economic …show more content…

The responsibility relies on the supplier as stated in the Negligent Misrepresentation Exception from the Restatement (Second) of Torts §552(1) (1977):
“One who supplies information during the course of his business...in which he has a pecuniary interest has a duty of reasonable care and competence to parties who rely upon the information in circumstances in which the maker was manifestly aware of the use to which the information was to be put and intended that it be so used.” (Scribd, n.d.) Squish, indirectly through ProPack, claimed they relied on the professional opinion of the Thomco agent. It would be Thomco’s duty to be knowledgeable about their products and aware of the damages that could occur as a result of unreliable information. Although mistakes do occur, Squish alleged there was a breach of ordinary duty that resulted in a large financial loss for them that otherwise should not have happened.

Show More
Related
838 Words | 4 Pages

Though Highland’s defense initially sounds legitimate, Highland‘s failure to communicate unique standards and their mishandling of Comway’s product is what actually compromises the products merchantability. Comark should hold enough special knowledge about their product to manufacture it in order to withstand temperatures that would not render the product unsuitable for its intended purpose. However, Highland’s refusal to provide Comark with information concerning the pizza and carton details dismisses Comark from its warranty of merchantability as it forces Highland to fall under the strict liability standard. Highland’s mishandling of Comark’s product by exposing it to extreme temperatures is what caused the ink to leak onto the pizza and possibly endanger customer health. This falls under the subsection of the strict liability standard: defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user.

Read More
793 Words | 4 Pages

Weber (1962) it was quoted "The fact that a particular injury suffered by a patient as the result of an operation is something that rarely occurs does not in itself prove that the injury was probably caused by the negligence of those in charge of the operation. " There was a chance that the inherent risks would happen to Cobbs, but it was not at the purpose of Grant’s negligence. Under Berkey v Anderson (1969), the defendant (physician), similar to this case, failed to inform and obtain consent from the patient about inherent risks of an operation and knew there would be complications. The defendant was found guilty of “technical” battery. The court was divided on the issue of whether this case would deem Grant’s action as negligence or battery.

Read More
667 Words | 3 Pages

Mitchell made the foregoing misrepresentations of fact to and concealed the true facts from Mildo/Perlow when he sold the house to them with the intent of inducing them to purchase it. Mitchell intended or had reason to expect that the misrepresentations and half-truths would be repeated to subsequent purchasers of the residents who would rely on them. The Court held that despite Mitchell was two sales removed from the plaintiff, he used his construction expertise to conceal the true condition of the property and knew there was a strong likelihood that the deception would be passed on to a subsequent

Read More
517 Words | 3 Pages

While Mrs. Mabee carried the jugs from the front door toward the back of the house, one of the jugs shattered and spilled on her body and on the dining room floor and furniture, causing severe damage. 2 & 3 -The Product was so defective that the product was unreasonably dangerous and cause the plaintiff’s injury. It was evident the product was defective since as soon the jugs were handed over to Mrs. Mabee by the delivery driver, the jugs shattered causing injury instantly. Jeanny

Read More
696 Words | 3 Pages

The result of the case provides how unethical the defense team was towards Mr. Maxell with wanting criminal charges after knowing Mr. Maxwell was not being paid at all for his services. The Bay State Paper Company should have compensated Mr. Maxwell based on the injury location at their

Read More
643 Words | 3 Pages

The juror’s rules that the company’s attorney failed to establish that the audit firm had intentionally fooled Ultramares. Regarding the negligence charge, the jury ruled in favor of Ultramares and ordered Touche to pay the company damages of $186,000. However, the judge overturned the jury’s ruling explaining his decision, that the jury overlooked the long-standing legal doctrine that only a party in privity could sue and recover damages resulting from a defendant’s negligence. Ultramares’ lawyers quickly appealed the trial judge’s decision.

Read More
601 Words | 3 Pages

Second, Judge Barnes was not the one discussing the case in the hallway it was Mack Jones the assistant. Mack Jones being the assistant, discussing or telling another person that Cartwright was in fact a liar about not steeling the stereo would be the one to be sued, however that would be hard because Cartwright would have to prove that the statement is false and this was an intent harm. Both would be hard to prove.

Read More
1110 Words | 5 Pages

In deciding this case, the court also looked at Section 341 of the Restatement of Torts. This section is titled “Activities Dangerous to Licensees,” and it states that people who own land may be held liable for others physical harm only if the person is unable to foresee or realize the danger associated with the action or if they do not know the risk involved with their activities. It

Read More
885 Words | 4 Pages

Breach of Contract / Intentional infliction of emotional distress, for prima facie tort Tortuous Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing5. The Plaintiff offered a Settlement which seems to have been accepted with consideration. If this offer/ acceptance/ consideration is considered a contract it was violated. If the Jury does not consider this Settlement Offer a Contract it still indicates the worth of the property taken without due process and the Defamtion. 5.

Read More
604 Words | 3 Pages

Conseco Grp. Risk Mgmt. Co. v. Ahrens Fin. Sys., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2306, at *1. Ultimately, the Court held that in matters involving public concern, whether private or public figure, a plaintiff was required to show actual malice in order to recover presumed or punitive damages.

Read More
1011 Words | 5 Pages

Teresa's case was submitted to the jury on the counts alleging breach of contract, negligence and wantonness, and the tort of outrage.   The jury returned a verdict against Akins and in favor of both plaintiffs.   The jury assessed compensatory damages at $450,000 and punitive damages at $150,000, for a total of $600,000 in Megan's case; in Teresa's case, the jury assessed compensatory damages of $200,000 and punitive damages of $150,000, for a total of $350,000.”

Read More
726 Words | 3 Pages

Which commercial brand of ice cream has the most air molecules? Does the amount of air molecules affect the the taste of the ice cream? There are many ingredients in ice cream like milk, cream, and sugar. What ingredient most people forget about is air. Air takes up 30 to 50% of the total volume of ice cream.

Read More
719 Words | 3 Pages

The contaminated water supply then resulted in the death of little children, and parents had to bury their own children. Therefore, there is no reason not to have prosecuted the two corporations as all the elements of negligence are displayed here. Consequently, both corporations whether it was intentional or accidental, committed an act of negligence. Although nothing can be done to undo the losses, both companies must have apologized and compensated the damages

Read More
961 Words | 4 Pages

There are two ethical issues in the case, the first ethical issue is that my car manufacturer is struggling with the idea to recall a model, and submit a report that could cost the company money or pretend that I didn’t know about the defect which could cause deadly accidents. The second issue is that before I could decide someone has release the products without any changes, and without certification, now I must make the decision should I look further into this event or leave it alone. I think that these are the ethical issues because I would not want lose more money for my company, but at the same time I would not want to cause deadly accidents by not reporting it and recalling it. In addition, because someone released the product without

Read More
829 Words | 4 Pages

The lack of negative outcome does not absolve the owner of his negligence, but only hides the fact. The problem lies not in the conclusion he came to, but in the biased assessment with which he formed.

Read More

More about Case Study: Squish La Fish Vs. Thomco Specialty Products

Related Topics

Open Document