Question

Standard Candy Co., a Tennessee firm, produces candy bars, including one known as the "Goo Goo Cluster." The Goo Goo Cluster candy bar contains peanuts provided to Standard Candy by an outside supplier. When James Newton II purchased a Goo Goo Cluster and bit into it, he encountered what he claimed to be an undeveloped peanut. Newton maintained that biting the undeveloped peanut caused him to experience a damaged tooth as well as recurring jaw-locking and hearing-loss problems. Newton sued Standard Candy and pleaded the following alternative claims: breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; negligent manufacture; negligent failure to warn; and strict liability. Concerning the breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim, what two tests might the court choose from in determining whether the Goo Goo Cluster Newton purchased was unmerchantable? Was the Goo Goo Cluster unmerchantable under either or both of these tests? What would Newton need to establish in order to win on the other three claims (the two negligence claims and the strict liability claim)? On which of those three claims would Newton stand the best chance of succeeding?



$1.99
Sales0
Views45
Comments0
  • CreatedJuly 16, 2014
  • Files Included
Post your question
5000