Essay On Business Torts & Product Liabilty

1. Crawford v. Williams, 375 S.F. 2d 223 Sup.Ct., Ga. (1989): Question- Did the buyers have a basis for a suit for fraud?
The buyers do not have a basis for fraud suit since they mistakenly believed the land included the well. The previous land owners even though they had pointed out the well, they did not mention that it was not part of the property. This does not mean they misled the buyers since there was a survey report that showed the well was not part of the property. It was the buyers’ negligence that they did not go through the report. There was no deceit involved.
2. Zimmerman v. D.C.A. at Welleby, Inc., 505 So.2d 1371 Dist. Ct. App., Fla. (1987). Question-The Company sued Zimmerman & others who participated, what will be the action alleged and likely result?
The action that could be taken is compensation to the sales office by the participants. It would result to their eviction as well because they got involved in deterring a third party from buying instead of dealing with the problem between them and the building owner.
3. Woeste v. Washington Platform Saloon & Restaurant, 836 N.E. 2d 52 Ct. App, Ohio (2005): Question-Would they have a good case&why?
They would not have a good case because the restaurant had already given a warning on the menu that the raw oysters are not for consumption by people with chronic diseases. It was the customer’s negligence of not reading the menu before ordering the raw oysters. The bacteria that affected Woestewerenaturally occurring bacteria in the oyster and not as a result of the restaurants carelessness. The restaurant will have a defense that it was the user’s negligence.
4. Williams v. Briggs 62F.3d 703 5th Cir. (1995).Question: Is that a design defect & Why?
It is a design defect because during making of the hot water tank the maker would have designed the product with a different thermostat that does not allow water to heat up to 170 degrees than it would not have caused injury. The hot water tank was dangerous because of its design since it failed to work safely as the consumer had expected. A product is considered defective if its design is dangerous to the user.