Question: 1 a According to the Wisconsin Supreme Court under what

1. a. According to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, under what circumstances might the nondisclosure by a seller of a defect constitute misrepresentation?
b. Did the court find that Harley-Davidson had a duty to disclose in this case? Explain.
2. a. What injury, if any, do the plaintiffs claim they suffered in this episode?
b. According to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, must a plaintiff in a fraud action prove that he or she has suffered actual damages prior to bringing a claim? Explain.
c. What is the “benefit of the bargain” rule?
3. Why did the Wisconsin Supreme Court rule for the defendant Harley- Davidson in this case?
4. Robert McGlothlin, an employee of Thomson Consumer Electronics in Bloomington, Indiana, was injured while loading televisions into a semitrailer when the trailer’s “landing gear” (retractable legs that support the front of the trailer when it is not attached to the semitractor) collapsed. McGlothlin sued the owner of the trailer, among others, claiming that the defendants’ repair and inspection procedures for latent (hidden) defects were inadequate. Should the court treat latent defects differently than patent (observable) defects in determining when a legal duty exists? Explain.

Sale on SolutionInn
  • CreatedOctober 02, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question