Charlotte Webb is visiting her sister Paula at her home in San Francisco, California. Because of the pandemic, Charlotte and Paula have not seen each other in over two years and the two make plans for a night of celebration beginning with drinks at the Linden Room. While getting dressed at Paula's, Charlotte uses Paula's brand-new Revlon Salon one-step hair dryer and volumizer. Within several minutes, the hair dryer explodes in her hand and the stem of the product becomes dislodged and punctures Charlotte's left eye. In addition, Charlotte experiences second-degree burns on her scalp and neck. Seeking to recover damages for her injuries, Charlotte sues Revlon for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and strict liability. At trial, Revlon seeks to avoid liability on the implied warranty claim by asserting that Charlotte did not purchase the product and that it does not have privity of contract with her. How could Charlotte respond to Revlon's assertion and recover for her injuries

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Charlotte could respond to Revlons assertion by arguing that she is still entitled to recover for he... View the full answer