Law 3220 1nd Edition Lecture 10 Outline of Last Lecture I False Imprisonment II Infliction of Emotional Mental Distress III Invasion of Privacy IV Defamation V Fraud a Breach of Contract Fraud Outline of Current Lecture I II III Intentional Interference with a Contractual Relationship Interference with Perspective Advantage Product Liability a Strict Liability b Failure of Warning c Unknown Hazards d Joint and Several Liability e Defenses of Product Liability Current Lecture Chapter 7 Lightle vs Real Estate Commission o Ted Lightle listed a house for sale Williams made an offer but there was a slight contingency on financing another realtor had interest from Seeley Seeley made offer and cancelled their current lease and prepared to move deal actually hadn t gone through so Seeley Lightle told Seeley she got the house but she should ve said Seeley was the backup offer Seeley sued for fraud Lightle tried to claim original deal was dead court ruled for Seeley moral is if you accept an offer you can t accept another one Intentional Interference with a Contractual Relationship o 1 Prove there is a contract o 2 Prove third party knows about the contract o 3 Prove the third party interferes with the contract Slater vs Driving Force o Slater bought sold rare and modern coins Slater worked with ICG coin wholesaler tells how much coins are worth they had a deal where they shared revenue ICG had These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor s lecture GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes not as a substitute employees Taylor and Williams who left the company and created Driving Force Driving Force hired ICG s key employees and drove ICG out of business Driving Force offered Cable Slater s biggest buyer a better deal than Slater because they knew their original deal Slater sued for Intentional Interference of a Contract trial court granted summary judgment to Driving Force no disagreement of the facts appeals court found jury would find Driving Force impaired ICG and Driving Forced used confidential info so the summary judgment was reversed went back to lower court and heard by a jury Interference With Perspective Advantage o One party makes it difficult for another party to conduct some or all of their business deals o Are you purposely trying to put the other out of business o Interference with a Relationship Gieseke vs IDCA o Brothers Michael and Arthur own Standard Water together get in a fight and split up Michael keeps Standard Arthur and Gieseke make new company Diversified Water IDCA bought out Arthur s half of Diversified Gieseke sued IDCA because they through Michael changed contacts and hauled away equipment Diversified water had the reasonable expectation of economic advantage so ruled for Diversified Product Liability Liability of producers and sellers for those injured by their product o Primarily tort law o Consumer often takes on assumption of the risk and it is not the producer s fault ex Riding a skateboard down a handrail o Privity of Contract consumer has to have contractual relationship with manufacturer so put the burden on the consumer plaintiff o Macpherson vs Buick Motors Buick sold cars to dealers which sold to consumers so Buick didn t have relationship with consumer dealer sold car to Macpherson with tires not from Buick one of the tires collapsed Macpherson sued Buick originally ruled for Macpherson appealed stayed with original ruling because said Buick should have seen the problem if they had properly inspected the car o To tell if it s a case of product liability Were damages foreseeable Avoid misrepresentation Have to have a relationship between product manufacturing and injury o Strict Liability liability is on manufacturer without having to find a fault 1 Implied Warranty unknown not said but expected Ex Expect food sold to you is safe to eat Implied Warranty of Merchantability expect product to be suitable for sale Implied Warranty for Fitness for Particular Purpose expect product to successfully perform it s purpose 2 Expressed warranty expressly represented either written or said o Baxter vs Ford Motor Ford said triple shatterproof glass will not fly or shatter under hardest impact rock hits windshield which hits eye court said no privy of contract appealed appeals court said it was a breach of an express warranty so it was sent back for trial by jury o o o o o o o Strict Liability of Tort was the defect the proximate cause of the injury Court does not care about reasonableness only if there was a defect Failure of Warning failure of manufacture to warn about dangers of a product Parish vs ICON Parish jumping on trampoline did backflip but landed on head and was rendered quadriplegic sued for not enough warnings court ruled for trampoline company because there were lots of warnings Timpte vs Gish Gish climbed up on a trailer to fix a problem got hurt sued because there was no ladder and the rail he was walking on was too narrow summary judgement for Timpte because it was open and obvious that it was dangerous and there was no design defect appeals court reversed Timpte appealed and won because the design was not meant for standing on the trailer and Timpte had warned to maintain three points of contact which would not have been possible standing on the trailer Unknown Hazards not known at the time product is manufactured Ex Asbestos Manufacturer has to have recall or warning when a hazard is detected Joint and Several Liability regardless of who causes the problem all parties are liable Ex Having an apartment with roommates Defenses of a Product Liability Case 1 Product misuse abuse 2 Assumption of the risk Ex Tobacco or alcohol use 3 Bulk supplier doctrine when manufacturer sells products in bulk intermediary takes responsibility if original manufacturer warned them 4 Sophisticated User Defense manufacturer is not liable if consumer reasonably should know of the product s dangers 5 Abnormally Dangerous Activities Ex Explosives