Issue
Is Hyundai Motor America responsible for not issuing a recall for the vehicles and not honor its warranty to provide a solution for the brakes problem?
Rules
A warranty is considered a promise issued to the purchaser by the manufacturer or seller that shows that the product is in good conditions, and if it is necessary, they will repair or replace the product within a specified period of time. The case states that the plaintiffs’ vehicles are covered with an express or basic warranty. In the article “Breach of Warranty Cases in Small Claims Court,” Ralph Warner says that express warranty is the promise that a manufacture or retailer gives the buyer in a written statement to maintain the performance of the product. In this case a promise
…show more content…
When we purchase a vehicle from any dealership, we have a warranty that our vehicle is in perfect working conditions. If we face a problem in our car, it is the dealerships’ obligation to provide a solution because it is under their warranty period. Hyundai Motors America should have given the proper solution for all the plaintiffs’ vehicles because they are under its responsibility to give a good product. The judge from this case, Kenneth M. Karas, took the final decision that the demand was granted to the plaintiffs for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and declaratory judgment claims. However, the judge denied the motion to the plaintiffs regarding express warranty and other claims. From what I understood the judge did not granted the plaintiffs for the demand about the warranty in their cars. I do not share the same decision. In my opinion, Hyundai Motors America failed to provide a warranty in their vehicles because their brake systems were defected. I might also think that it is not the fault of Hyundai Motors America, but instead of the vehicles’ manufactures because they are responsible for the conditions they deliver their vehicles. However, Hyundai Motors America have also tools and machines that they can test their vehicles, and if they find something wrong, they can contact the manufactures before selling them to the public. HMA sold vehicles with a defective brake system, so they have to honor its warranty and provide a solution to this problem because this company guarantees that its vehicles were in excellent
When doing an evaluation of any case, you should always look at all the relevant facts and issues involved before jumping to conclusions. As for this case, Mike Thurmond, the operator of Top Quality Auto Sales, a used car dealership, has financed his dealerships inventory of vehicles by creating a financing arrangement with Indianapolis Car Exchange (ICE). ICE then filed a financing statement that listed Top Quality’s inventory as collateral for the financing. After this, Top Quality sold a Ford truck to Bonnie Chrisman, who was also a used car dealer. Chrisman paid Top Quality for the truck and then proceeded to sell it Randall and Christina Alderson, who paid Chrisman for the vehicle. In
...e terms and conditions the job entailed. I believe that Wal-Mart did accommodate Pam Huber’s disability needs by suggesting to her a different position to work in due to her downfall. If the company caused for her accident then they should accommodate for her disability and keep Pam Huber in her position but due to the fact that the accident happened on her own terms I do not think the company should be reliable for her disability and therefore Pam Huber should either accept and make the most out of her situation or leave the company. Based on all these factors I am defiantly in agreement with Wal-Mart and the district courts decision on ruling summery judgment in favor of Pam Huber.
Central Garage, Inc. It was a challenging opinion to read since this case is old and, at that time, no Florida court had addressed the precise issue presented. The facts of the case are that Central Garage DBA Gulfcoast is a corporation that performs installations, repair and maintenance of auto air conditioners and auto accessories. On the other side, Hapney worked in many auto repair shops in the Tampa area where he learned to install and repair auto air conditioning systems. In 1988, he started working for Gulfcoast, where he entered into a non-compete agreement. The agreement stated the following: “I further agree that for a period of three years following the termination of my employment I will not offer, as an agent, employee, owner, or distributor, similar products or services on behalf of a competitor of the Company on the west coast of Florida from Crystal River to Naples or inland 100 miles.” A year after working with Gulfcoast, Hapney willingly ended his employment with Gulfcoast and a month later, Gulfcoast filed a lawsuit to enforce the covenant not to compete in where the trial court granted an injunction. As stated earlier, at the time of the case, there wasn’t many decisions in which the judge can cite and base his decision on. The judge for this case had to look for cases in other states to get an idea of cases with a similar issue, which makes it a tough case to decide on. Some of the issues that the appellate court focused on is that Hapney did not receive significant training on installing and repairing automobile air conditioning systems, he had no significant contacts with Gulfcoast’s customers, and he did not acquire trade secrets from Gulfcoast. These were three issues that were heavily discussed on the opinion and it amazes the kind of detail that they were covered with. The
Krum, the court ruled that when the defendant sold ice cream to the plaintiff, he did so with the implied warranty that it was fit for human consumption, and referring to a previous case, determined that this implied warranty was necessary to the preservation of health and life (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Race v. Krum, 118 N.E., at P#2 and #4, (1918)); similarly, in Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., the court ruled that privity between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer was not essential for recovery of damages as this recovery would not impose a greater burden on the manufacturer or on the immediate seller of the food than it would be if the original purchaser had been injured (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd., 14 Cal.2d 272 (S.F. No. 16626., at Pgs. 13-14
The Massachusetts Lemon Law protects any used car, truck, van, or demonstration vehicle as has been defined by Massachusetts state standards. Under the Lemon Law, dealers are required to conduct any repairs that compromise the use or safety of the vehicle during the warranty period. If you caused these problems yourself, however, whether through negligence or making changes to the vehicle, then the dealer is not recovered to cover the repairs under the warranty. If the vehicle is purchased through a private part seller, then it is required that the buyers are informed of any defects that could compromised the use or safety of a
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
Did the court find specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in this case?
A warranty is a promise, either expressed or implied, about the nature, quality, or performance of the goods. A statement about the value of goods or the seller’s opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty. A buyer cannot hold a seller liable for sales talk. The proprietor stating that the cigars are “just like the great Cuban cigars’ could be decided by the courts that it is simply sales talk. When the contract is based in part on the understanding that the seller will supply goods according to a particular description or that the goods will be the same as the sample or a model, the seller is bound by an express warranty that the goods conform to the description, sample or model. The cigars Arthur bought for his father
In order to better understand this claim it is imperative to understand the attributes of an expressed warranty. An expressed warranty is created when a seller either with his words or actions clearly indicates to the buyer that the goods they are selling will meet certain standards. The UCC further defines this with three attributes, the affirmation of fact or promise, the description of the goods, and lastly with a sample or model. The UCC not only uses those criterias but also established that these features were the basis of the bargain between the consumer and
The plaintiff firm of surveyors bought a second-hand Rolls Royce from the defendants which developed serious defects after 2,000. It was held that the firm was acting as a consumer and that to buy in the course of a business 'the buying of cars must form at the very least an integral part of the buyer's business or a necessary incidental thereto'. It was emphasised that only in those circumstances could the buyer be said to be on equal footing with his seller in terms of bargaining strength.
did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, in that it was up to them to...
Noel, Dix. “Defective Products: Abnormal Use, Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk” Vanderbilt Law Review. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. 313-23. Print.
Review the scenario below. Consider the legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in negligence.
could "be found legally liable. It is not reasonable for Toshiba to enforce liability for compensatory
...harged for i.e. a warranty must come free of charge with the product. For example, the price of a car includes the manufacturer warranty that comes with it. Insurance products are heavily regulated and have dozens of federal and state regulations and much oversight. This is meant to ensure that such companies treat all insurance customers fairly and that they maintain enough reserves to pay for any potential claims. Although there are some insurance products sold at the F&I dealership (such as Mechanical Breakdown Insurance, GAP Insurance), for the most part they are 'contracts' between the customer and the service provider - in most cases, to reimburse the customer should something untoward happen to an asset of some kind that the customer is purchasing. In fact, the technical term most used for such products is 'Contractual Liability Insurance Program (CLIP)'.