View Single Post
      11-18-2008, 03:33 PM   #243
Vickyy
Colonel
Taiwan
25

 
Drives: 2006 AW 325i
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: walnut, CA


Posts: 2,385
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2006 325i  [0.00]
Send a message via AIM to Vickyy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AoshichanX View Post
Consider Plaintiff-UdubBadger and Defendant-Longtran. Used what little facts are given regarding the issues. Facts in disagreement are prefaced with "allegedly".

Torts
Plaintiff Claims
Product Liability. Manufacturers and sellers of defective products that injure person or property. No injury to person or property. No case.
Vicarious Liability. Defendant may jointly be liable for the actions of another. Under the theory of Respondeat Superior, employers are held liable for actions of employees within the scope of their employment. Drew is not an employee, but more of an independent contractor; he was independently contracted by Long for a one-time sale of goods to UdubBadger. However, those who hire independent contractors may also be held liable if they closely supervise the contractor's day-to-day activities. Prima facie case.
General Negligence. Defendant owed a duty of due care as a reasonably prudent person. Here, Defendant, through an independent contractor, sold trim to Plaintiff which turned out to be poor fitment. Could Defendant have reasonably foreseen that the fitment fit poorly? The trim has been known to fit perfectly on other vehicles. It can be argued Defendant could not have reasonably foreseen, as a reasonably prudent person, that the product was defective. Claim unlikely.

Defendant's Defense
Contributory Negligence. Plaintiff allegedly breached a duty owed to himself. Plaintiff owed a duty of due care to himself in removing the trim cracked the trime.


Contracts - Remedies
Promissory Estoppel
Even if there is no written contract, but an oral promise was made with offer and acceptance, and the Plaintiff substantially relied on the promise to his detriment, the plaintiff can recover costs incurred through reliance on the promise.
Expectancy Interests
Market value less contract price. UdubBadger could not recover damages since UdubBadger purchased trim at a bargain price and any expectancy interests would unjustly enrich UdubBadger.
Restitution Interest
By theory of quantum meruit, Longtran, in giving adequate consideration by putting out of pocket overnight shipping expenses for UdubBadger, allowed for UdubBadger's unjust enrichment. UdubBadger consequently owes costs incurred by Longtran.

I gave you the rules, I am sure you guys can figure out who is at fault.