BLTS-10e Practice Quiz
Chapter 17: Warranties and Product Liability
1. Which of the following statements do not create an express warranty?
a. The seller states that the goods conform to a description she offers.
b. The seller states that she purchased the goods from a reputable manufacturer.
c. The seller states that the goods conform to a promise of fact she makes to the buyer.
d. The seller states that the goods conform to a sample she has showed the buyer.
ANS:
a. Incorrect. This statement would create an express warranty.
b. Correct. This statement would not create an express warranty.
c. Incorrect. This statement would create an express warranty.
d. Incorrect. This statement would create an express warranty.
2. An implied warranty of merchantability means that:
a. The goods are of less than average quality.
b. The goods are reasonably fit for the ordinary purpose for which they are sold.
c. The goods are fit for a particular use specified by the buyer.
d. The goods do not meet federal standards of safety.
ANS:
a. Incorrect. An implied warranty of merchantability means that the goods being sold are reasonably fit for their purpose, not of less-than-average quality.
b. Correct. An implied warranty of merchantability means that the goods are reasonably fit for the ordinary purpose for which they are sold.
c. Incorrect. Such a warranty would be an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
d. Incorrect. An implied warranty of merchantability does not mean that the goods fail to meet federal safety standards.
3. The implied warranty of merchantability applies to food. Merchantable food would include which of the following?
a. A bag of apples with a razor blade inside.
b. A jar of applesauce with an earthworm inside.
c. A can of peaches with a portion of a peach pit inside.
d. A package of green beans with a dead grasshopper inside.
ANS:
a. Incorrect. A consumer would not expect to find a razor blade in a bag of apples, so this would not be merchantable food.
b. Incorrect. A consumer would not expect to find an earthworm inside a jar of applesauce, so this is not merchantable food.
c. Correct. It is not unreasonable for a consumer to find a portion of a pit in a can of peaches; this is merchantable food.
d. Incorrect. A dead grasshopper should not be in bag of green beans so the beans are not merchantable.
4. There has been sharp disagreement among state courts as to the extent to which warranty liability should extend to third parties. In view of this disagreement, the UCC:
a. provides that warranty liability can never extend to third parties because this is precluded by the doctrine of privity of contract.
b. provides that warranty liability always extends to third parties, regardless of the type of injury or harm involved.
c. provides three alternatives for liability to third parties; states can adopt whichever alternative they choose.
d. decided not to include any provisions in the UCC concerning warranty liability to third parties.
ANS:
a. Incorrect. This is not what the UCC provides.
b. Incorrect. This is not what the UCC provides.
c. Correct. This is what the UCC provides.
d. Incorrect. The UCC provided three alternatives for liability to third parties; states can adopt whichever alternative they choose.
5. A lemon law deals with:
a. Defective automobiles.
b. Defective electrical appliances.
c. Infected fruit crops.
d. Government corruption.
ANS:
a. Correct. State laws called lemon laws protect consumers from problems that arise with defective automobiles.
b. Incorrect. Lemon laws deal with cars, not with electrical appliances.
c. Incorrect. Lemon laws do not deal with lemons, or with other fruit.
d. Incorrect. Some politicians may be lemons, but the law doesn't deal with them.
6. If a manufacturer fails to exercise "due care" in its efforts to make a product safe and as a result someone is injured, the manufacturer may be held liable for:
a. Embezzlement.
b. Theft.
c. Negligence.
d. Disclaimer of title.
ANS:
a. Incorrect. The manufacturer did not embezzle (steal) funds; rather, it failed to exercise its duty of care and was thus negligent.
b. Incorrect. The manufacturer did not commit theft but failed to exercise due care.
c. Correct. The manufacturer breached its duty of care and was thus negligent.
d. Incorrect. The manufacturer did not disclaim its title to goods; it negligently manufactured goods.
7. Strict product liability is imposed by law as a matter of public policy. On which of the following assumptions does the policy rest?
a. That consumers should be protected from unsafe products.
b. That defense lawyers need more work.
c. That plaintiffs' attorneys had sufficient basis for bringing claims against manufacturers.
d. That manufacturers would be put out of business by forcing them to bear the risk of injuries.
ANS:
a. Correct. This is one of the assumptions underlying strict product liability law.
b. Incorrect. This is not one of the assumptions underlying the law.
c. Incorrect. This is not one of the assumptions underlying the law.
d. Incorrect. This is not one of the assumptions underlying the law.
8. A court might consider a product to be unreasonably dangerous if:
a. A less dangerous alternative was commercially feasible, but was not produced.
b. The product was less dangerous than was expected by the ordinary consumer.
c. The product was frequently misused by consumers, despite adequate warnings about the dangers of misusing the product.
d. The product was adequately labeled with warnings for the ordinary consumer.
ANS:
a. Correct. In such a situation, a court might find a product to be unreasonably dangerous.
b. Incorrect. In such a situation, a court would not find a product to be unreasonably dangerous.
c. Incorrect. If the manufacturer adequately warned of the dangers associated with foreseeable misuses of the product, a court would not deem the product unreasonably dangerous on the basis of inadequate warnings.
d. Incorrect. If the product was adequately labeled it would not be unreasonably dangerous.
9. When market-share liability is imposed:
a. The plaintiff need not prove which particular distributor of a widely distributed product caused his or her injury.
b. The plaintiff must prove which distributor supplied the product that caused his or her injury.
c. The plaintiff must prove which distributor supplied the product that caused his or her injury only if the product was distributed internationally.
d. The defense of assumption of risk allows the defendants to avoid liability.
ANS:
a. Correct. In market-share liability cases, this traditional requirement in product liability cases has been dropped.
b. Incorrect. This traditional requirement in product liability need not be met in market-share liability cases.
c. Incorrect. The plaintiff need not prove which distributor supplied the injury-causing product, regardless of whether the product is distributed
d. internationally.
e. Incorrect. Assumption of risk is not an issue in these cases.
10. Which of the following is a defense to product liability?
a. Assumption of risk.
b. Self-defense.
c. Bona fide occupational qualification.
d. Justifiable ignorance of the facts.
ANS:
a. Correct. This is a defense that can sometimes be raised in a product-liability case.
b. Incorrect. This defense would not be raised in a product liability action.
c. Incorrect. This defense would not be raised in a product liability action.
d. Incorrect. This defense would not be raised in a product liability action.