The main warranty theory which is best suited for the partners is the breach of warranty theory and the breach of contract. The breach of warranty highlights the damages which are available to the disappointed buyer when the specific seller has breached the article which explicitly stipulates the qualitative warranties. Therefore any buyer who has allowed nonconforming products and follows the other conditions prior to his or her to recover the goods has the right to claim warranty.
On the other hand a breach of contract claim exists when the seller fails even to deliver the products when the need arise. Therefore to solve both breach of contract claim and breach of warranty both the seller and the buyer need to undertake the following for their well being. The buyer can reject the product or evocates for the acceptance of the same product and many more.
The main constitutional theory which might assist Joan and Doan in their pursuit to the case is the negligence theory. This theory states that most personal injuries and losses are based on the individual negligence and carelessness on the already acquired information. Therefore in the case above, though Joan and Doan may he held liable for the customers’ injuries, but the customers may also be negligent because they had already been warned against the animals but still associate themselves with them. Therefore the customers’ damages ought to be reduced by the percentage of their liability.
Contributory Negligence. The defendant should l claim that the injured party contributed to his or her own harm, and thus the defendant should not be held liable. The party who has been injured was the contributory negligent hence the defendants should not be recover the injuries. The second augment which the defendant emphasizes is the Assumption of Risk.
it is clear that the injured party engaged in a dangerous activity, and the court should work on the assumption that he or she assumed the risks connected with the harmful activity and is the one solely responsible for their losses and injuries. They should also claim that they are not responsible for the injuries because defendant did not cause the injury, something else did. Therefore with all these justifications, they should fill case against the public.
Reference
Conjecture, K. (2003).What is Arbitration Contract? Retrieved from http://www.bing.com/?scope=web&mkt=en-ww&FORM=UP68DF&pc=UP6
Kelly. (2004).Defences to Civil Liability. Retrieved from
. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/defenses-to-civil-liability.html http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/defenses-to-civil-liability.htmlhttp://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/defenses-to-civil-liability.html (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/defenses-to-civil-liability.htmlConjecture Corporation
Conjecture Corporation
