1. It has been determined that the product (coffee) that was sold with a defective container that had design defects, that the serving specifications of the coffee was manufactured at excessively high temperatures, moreover the container that it was sold in had no warnings, thus it was defectively marketed, so it is considered unfit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; therefore, it is in violation of an implied warranty of merchantability. In contrast to this case of an implied warranty of merchantability case, Andrews v. Dial Corp., 2015 WL 6550055 (2015), “when a plaintiff brings a product liability suit under an implied warranty of merchantability, they are required to prove proximate causation.” In this case the plaintiff
…show more content…
During all of the time before the coffee incident McDonalds were aware of the dangerous conditions of the coffee inherent in serving to its customers. During the litigation it was also determined that they knew of the likely consequences of such acts, the risks involved and acted with a conscious disregard for the safety of their customers. Once an implied warranty of fitness has been created and is violated then it is a violation of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-315.
In a similar case, Bussey v. E.S.C. Restaurants, 620 S.E. 2d 764 (2005) in a food poising complaint for livestock, the defendant failed to use laboratory testing to definitely identify food poisoning. According to the Court which stated “ That the goods were unreasonably dangerous either for the use to which they would ordinarily be put or for some other reasonably foreseeable purpose, and that the unreasonably dangerous condition existed when the goods left the defendants …show more content…
Energen, No. 27489 (2008), where the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to protect motorist from a natural gas wellhead, which resulted in death of a nineteen year old boy who backed into the unprotected gas well that exploded and burned to death. The Court held, after weighing the factors punitive damages are appropriate to achieve the dual goals of punishment and deterrence in this case.
5. When McDonalds sold extremely hot coffee to its customers, they sold a product that was defective that can cause severe injuries to a consumer who buys it.
In analysis, to this case, a class action settlement was reached with Glen Vereen v. Lowe’s Home Centers Inc. Su10-CV-2267B, where it was alleged that Lowe’s Hardware Store sold defective drywall that stunk and tarnished metal that it came in contact with, according to a news report. The drywall settlement was worth $6.5
During all of the time before the coffee incident McDonalds were aware of the dangerous conditions of the coffee inherent in serving to its customers. During the litigation it was also determined that they knew of the likely consequences of such acts, the risks involved and acted with a conscious disregard for the safety of their customers. Once an implied warranty of fitness has been created and is violated then it is a violation of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-315.
In a similar case, Bussey v. E.S.C. Restaurants, 620 S.E. 2d 764 (2005) in a food poising complaint for livestock, the defendant failed to use laboratory testing to definitely identify food poisoning. According to the Court which stated “ That the goods were unreasonably dangerous either for the use to which they would ordinarily be put or for some other reasonably foreseeable purpose, and that the unreasonably dangerous condition existed when the goods left the defendants …show more content…
Energen, No. 27489 (2008), where the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to protect motorist from a natural gas wellhead, which resulted in death of a nineteen year old boy who backed into the unprotected gas well that exploded and burned to death. The Court held, after weighing the factors punitive damages are appropriate to achieve the dual goals of punishment and deterrence in this case.
5. When McDonalds sold extremely hot coffee to its customers, they sold a product that was defective that can cause severe injuries to a consumer who buys it.
In analysis, to this case, a class action settlement was reached with Glen Vereen v. Lowe’s Home Centers Inc. Su10-CV-2267B, where it was alleged that Lowe’s Hardware Store sold defective drywall that stunk and tarnished metal that it came in contact with, according to a news report. The drywall settlement was worth $6.5