Product Liability Case questions
5.3 – Defenses to Product Liability – page 131
The product liability defenses take the process and the act of proving that the products presented by the manufacturer were not faulty and not legal liability can be associated with the manufacturer as a result of the loss suffered by the consumer. In this regard, the defendant needs to prove that elements of product liability claim include proving the product was inherently defective and the presumed defect did not cause an injury that does not exist. The defense on the product liability will evaluate the Fazio v. Cypress/GR Houston I, LP to ensure Fazio is exonerated
The information on the property did not have fraud issues emanating from the defendant. In this regard, the defendant provided all the relevant information that concerned him in the interest of the property. It is important to note that Garden Ridge was not a party to the sale agreement and thus Fazio had no legal obligation to present any information concerning the third-party (Owen, 2005). The third-party was simply a tenant in the property in question and thus the buyer of the property needed to access the additional information from the third party in the case that it would affect the sale agreement meaning the plaintiff was negligent and ignorant in the sale agreement. Equally important, upon the purchase of the property Cypress can rent the premises to other parties that fulfilled their financial agreement.
The presumed fraud did cannot be directly connected to the loss registered on selling the property at a lower price as the value of the property did not change (Owen, 2005). The value of the property remained the same value or even appreciated in three years therefore the loss associated with selling the property at a lower price cannot be connected to the presumed fraud.
5.4 – Product Liability – page 134
In the case of Chelene and Marta, Martha used her inheritance from her mother Janis to purchase a house from Chelene. Chelene argued the house was in perfect condition before selling it but later upon the purchase, Marta realized that the basement was leaking since there was a wall failure that had existed for over thirty years.
In defense of Chelene, the plaintiff was negligent in the sale agreement as they agreed to the purchase of the property without inspecting it. The plaintiff did not follow the right procedure of purchasing a property for she did not inspect the property they were buying (Owen, 2005). If she purchased the property without duress or coercion, it is presumed that she was satisfied with the property and she cannot come later to complain to the seller. Therefore, the plaintiff was negligent and ignorant and it is presumed that she was contented with the property at the time of buying it.
The defense can further be based on the assumption of the risks that were previously experienced by the defendant. In this case, one purchases a property from another party they assume and experience the advantages and disadvantages associated with it (Owen, 2005). It is presumed that as one accepts to purchase a property they are aware of the benefits and risks associated with it. The fact that the property was old (constructed in the 1950s) then it is likely that it has defects that the buyer has accepted to assume.
Reference
Owen, D. G. (2005). Special Defenses in Modern Products Liability Law. Mo. L. Rev., 70, 1.
