Betty Epstein visited a beauty parlor to get her hair dyed. In the dying process, the beautician used a pre-bleach solution manufactured by Clairol, and then a commercial dye manufactured by Sales Affiliate, Inc. The treatment went awry, and the plaintiff suffered severe hair loss, injuries to both her hair and scalp and some disfigurement. She sued the beauty salon, Clairol, and Sales Affiliate under article 2 of the UCC. The defendants claimed that the contract was predominantly for services rather than for the sale of a good.
When Rampart Security was hired by Nationwide Discount Furniture to install an alarm in its warehouse, Rampart Security took on the obligation of notifying Nationwide immediately in the event that a fire should set off an alarm in Rampart’s office. When a fire did breakout, Rampart allegedly failed to notify Nationwide, causing the fire to spread next door and damage a building owned by Gasket Materials Corp. By failing to notify Nationwide of the fire, Rampart failed to complete their delegated responsibilities, thereby breaching their contract with Nationwide. Though Rampart had no contract or delegated responsibilities towards the Gasket Corporation, the neglect of their responsibilities to Nationwide did result in damages to Gasket property.
Why or why not? Yes I agree with the judge decision, since there was a similar case where the judge found a defendant negligent when sulphuric acid in a defective jug broke and caused acid to pour over the consumer, resulting injury and damages to her furniture and floors of her home. The judge used the strict product liability theory in the case of Mabee V. Sutliff & Case CO., INC. 1-The Product was defective when sold. Mrs. Mabee ordered two-one gallon glass jugs of sulphuric acid, which were delivered to her front door.
Since Superfast knowingly sold the compromised cans of chicken and Susan purchased them she claims the assumption of risk. In the case of John Morrell Company vs. Mrs. Angie Schultz, she also accepted the assumption of risk since she noticed that the can had been dented prior to eating the potted meat that she purchased (JOHN MORRELL & COMPANY v. Mrs. Angie SHULTZ., 1968). It was also stated that she did not consider the dent serious enough to affect the contents of the can.
Mrs. Moore has the duty of proving lack of probable cause for bringing the criminal action against her, Lewis v. Crystal Gas Co., 532 P.2d 431 (Okl. 1975), and she must prove lack of probable cause by affirmative evidence. The defendants do not feel that her evidence, that she picked up a box which was marked incorrectly, is not a probable cause to believe she was responsible. Although, the record demonstrated proof, that she did not have fingernails to change the price tags, and the jury believed this
Thomas builds her credibility with personal facts and reputable sources. Thomas successfully informs the readers about her argument of buying a fake product. Thomas assumes that the readers, does not know the truth behind buying a counterfeit product.
Harris’s responsibility was to provide refunds to patients. After investigating, they noticed that many patients hadn’t received their refunds. The investigator said that over the past years she had embezzled more than $800,000. Harris’s responsibility was to provide refunds to patient’s. Surprisingly,
In the case of Mr. Mara, Ms. Green provided the only evidence of an overt act to promote criminal activity or intent to participate in the said criminal activity. Ms. Green’s voluntary testimony after she was caught does not seem to accurately relay the actions of Mr. Mara. The veracity of her testimony is in the fact that “she’ confesses when she says “I made a mistake,” the actions and mistake are hers and not Mr. Mara. This was a joke, which now seemed to have spiraled out of control. It is the State’s responsibility to prove that Mr. Mara committed an overt act in pursuance of the agreement.
She disclosed that the trade and exchange was between their headquarters, and Juarez, Mexico. They needed a location where it was more cost effective to transport their product instead of sending it to their headquarters each time, the product delivery was fast and gave them the advantage to produce more labor and products to distribute. It was really important for the company to be close to a border city because of cheap labor. They had Mexicans come to work in the United States for lower paying jobs. She has been a part of the company for eight years, working over twelve hours a day, constant back problems and standing for long periods of time.
Jan acknowledges his situation, “The whole idea of lawsuits is to settle, to compel the other side to settle” [1]. In fact, he uses this reasoning to his advantage by demanding a total of 320 million dollars from both companies. The case is drawn out and both businesses stubbornly refuse to take responsibility, Cheeseman arguing that, “These chemicals never reached Wells G and H - we will show that. And they never made anyone sick. We will show that, too” [1] while Fascher, representing Beatrice Foods, explaining that, “Unless you've proven that poisons reached the wells, there's no case” [1].
The issue showcased as a bad reputation in the American society, along with the individual's greed towards money and distrust of lawyers. A similar incident occurred as Haltom and McCann bring up the topic of the McDonald’s coffee incident, as someone spilled a hot cup of coffee on them and ended up winning the case with a huge cash out. As a whole, the issue surrounds the greed of the stupidity of an individual, along with their blame towards others as they seem to be the “victim” in this
The first thing that Janet has to do is establish a prima facie case. In order to prove a prima facie case, she would have to prove the following: a. She applied for the position, plant foreman, which at the time was available. b. That the plaintiff, (Janet), was qualified for that position. c. That she was ultimately turned down for the position.
Mya Berry MATTHEW FORESTER Ap Lang Apr 9, 2024 Rachel Carson In 1962 Rachel Carson was successful in her argument against pesticides in her 1962 book Silent Spring, as explained in her book about the incident in California an orchard worker handling foliage was treated from pesticide poisoning which caused them to go into shock and barely escape death but with skilled medical attention they survived. This incident describes how powerful the example she uses is, why pesticides are bad and not used correctly and can affect human health. Carson brings attention to the severe consequences faced by workers affected by pesticides and the workers life was only saved by medical attention, which shows the grave situation and the urgent need for responsible and sustainable practices
Whether the Defendant, Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor, knew or ought to have known that the customer, Mr. Watkins, was intoxicated? According to the evidence obtained in Direct Examination, Mr. Jones maintains that he did not know and he could not have ought to have known that Mr. Watkins was intoxicated. In fact, Mr. Jones states with a certainty that “At no time on that date did I sell liquor to someone who appeared drunk. That is against the company policy, and I can be fired for doing so.”
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Office of Pesticide Programs handles most of the issues involving pesticide issues. The FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) allows the EPA to choose which pesticides can be used and how they can be used in the United States. Each pesticide made must be registered and checked by the EPA before is can be sold to the public, however, if the pesticide doesn 't meet certain regulations made by the EPA while it is registered and deemed safe and whatnot, the EPA has the authority to cancel the pesticide and discontinue its sale. (This paragraph is also going to stand for what should have been the fourth paragraph, considering that this topic is about regulations for pesticides.)
