A) No, because there was no writing guaranteeing the warranty signed by the salesperson.
B) No, because Sally was only engaged in puffing.
C) No, because only the manager can make such a warranty.
D) Yes, but only because Sally verbally made certain promises.
E) Yes, because there was a reasonable expectation of how the vehicle would perform.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) There is no implied warranty of merchantability because of a lack of evidence that Samantha made any express statements regarding the blender.
B) There is no implied warranty of merchantability because a consumer appliance was involved.
C) There is no implied warranty of merchantability because Samantha was not a merchant in respect to consumer appliances.
D) There was an implied warranty of merchantability because a consumer appliance was involved.
E) There was an implied warranty of merchantability because no merchant in goods of that type was involved.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) That the implied warranty of title did not extend to subsequent purchasers.
B) That the implied warranty of title did extend to subsequent purchasers.
C) That the implied warranty of title extended only to subsequent purchasers who purchased within 12 months.
D) That the implied warranty of title extended only to subsequent purchasers who purchased within 4 years.
E) That the implied warranty of title extended only to the first three subsequent purchasers, but no further.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) No, because the implied warranty of merchantability was that the car would, for example, be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. Pulling the boat was not an ordinary purpose for that small car.
B) Yes, because Donnie informed Sally about the need for the car to pull the boat.
C) Yes, because Sally told Donnie that the car would pull the boat.
D) No, because of the lack of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
E) No, because there was no warranty of merchantability.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) It is presumed to be a limited warranty.
B) It is presumed to be an express, limited warranty.
C) It is presumed to be a limited warranty of merchantability.
D) It is presumed to be a limited usage of trade warranty.
E) It is presumed to be a full warranty.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Essay
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
Multiple Choice
A) Puffing
B) Falsehood
C) Innocent misrepresentation
D) Fraudulent misrepresentation
E) Improper inducement
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) It operates as a waiver of warranty rights under the contract.
B) There is no effect so long as the plaintiff can establish that he or she was not aware of the statute of limitations.
C) It operates as a waiver of warranty rights only if the defendant can establish that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the statute of limitations.
D) It results in the plaintiff only having the right to sue for injunctive relief, not damages.
E) It results in the plaintiff only having the right to sue for damages, not injunctive relief.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) She would win so long as the store cannot prove that Clara knew Harold was just giving his opinion.
B) She would win so long as she can prove that she did not know that Harold was only giving his opinion.
C) She may rely on the statement and win because it was made by Harold in his capacity as a manager, not by an uninformed sales clerk.
D) She would lose because Harold was only expressing his opinion.
E) She would lose because a consumer good was involved.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) That the plaintiff could not recover because the bone was not a foreign substance to the fish and should have been expected.
B) That the plaintiff could recover based upon the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
C) That the plaintiff could recover based on an express warranty.
D) That the plaintiff could recover based upon the implied warranty of merchantability because even through bones are not a foreign substance to fish, they are not expected in small pieces of tuna fish.
E) That the plaintiff could not recover because no food has warranties attached to it.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Warranties are not recognized in Hong Kong.
B) Time of payment and delivery are considered warranties.
C) Time of payment is considered a warranty, but delivery is not considered a warranty.
D) Delivery is considered a warranty, but time of payment is not considered a warranty.
E) Conditions are considered the same as warranties.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The salesclerk made an express warranty, a warranty of trade usage, and a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
B) The salesclerk made a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, but not an express warranty of a warranty of trade usage.
C) The salesclerk made an express warranty and a warranty of trade usage, but not a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
D) The salesclerk made an express warranty, but not a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose or a warranty of trade usage.
E) The salesclerk made a warranty of trade usage, but not a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose or an express warranty.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Express warranty
B) Implied warranty
C) Warranty of fitness for a particular purpose
D) Acknowledged warranty
E) Puffing
Correct Answer
verified
Essay
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
Essay
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
Multiple Choice
A) Agreement
B) Confirmation
C) Promise estopped
D) Pledge
E) Acknowledgment
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Showing 1 - 20 of 65
Related Exams