Davey Jones (DJ) had an incident with a used ship he purchased from Captain Jack Sparrow (CJS) Inc., where upon the ships first use and under reasonable conditions the ship was found to be taking on water and required rescue. DJ is considering litigation against CJS Inc. for this incident, in which case DJ would be the plaintiff and CJS Inc. would be the defendant. In this fact scenario DJ had contractual rights under the common law. It should also be apparent that litigation should not be taken against the salesperson who assisted DJ with the purchase, as vicarious liability which should protect her because she was simply acting within the ordinary course of employment as an agent of CJS Inc. (e.g. allowing DJ to inspect the ship prior to purchase) (DuPlessis et al. 2011)
Upon the sale of the boat between DJ and CJS Inc. a contract was created. This contract is likely written due to the amount of money being …show more content…
If such a defect was underlying, was it known to the CJS Inc.? DJ should also consider pursuing compensation using a sub-classification of tort law and depending on relevant facts, deceit, fraud or a product liability claim could be made. Correspondingly, under negligence law, DJ may argue that CJS Inc. sold him a defective product that was not fit for its intended and known purpose. DJ could also argue misrepresentation, as he was induced to enter into the contract based on representations (or omissions) made about the quality of the ship. Since there is no evidence of fraudulent intent, DJ would likely argue there was innocent or negligent misrepresentation. However, CJS Inc. could claim in defence that DJ took on a voluntary assumption of risk by purchasing a used ship, but this is unlikely to succeed as no explicit acknowledgment of the risks were made by either
Upon the sale of the boat between DJ and CJS Inc. a contract was created. This contract is likely written due to the amount of money being …show more content…
If such a defect was underlying, was it known to the CJS Inc.? DJ should also consider pursuing compensation using a sub-classification of tort law and depending on relevant facts, deceit, fraud or a product liability claim could be made. Correspondingly, under negligence law, DJ may argue that CJS Inc. sold him a defective product that was not fit for its intended and known purpose. DJ could also argue misrepresentation, as he was induced to enter into the contract based on representations (or omissions) made about the quality of the ship. Since there is no evidence of fraudulent intent, DJ would likely argue there was innocent or negligent misrepresentation. However, CJS Inc. could claim in defence that DJ took on a voluntary assumption of risk by purchasing a used ship, but this is unlikely to succeed as no explicit acknowledgment of the risks were made by either