Reference no: EM132183221

1. Porter &Dietsch, Inc., marketed a weight-loss pill. The advertisements stated that users could eat whatever they wanted and still slim down, no starvation dieting was necessary and weight loss could be accomplished without suffering through boring diets. In fact, use of the tablet had very little effect without also following a severely restricted calorie diet. Which of the following are possible consequences?

The Federal Trade Commission could seek a voluntary agreement with Porter &Dietsch or issue a “cease and desist” order.

So long as at least one person lost weight using the pills on a reasonable diet, Porter &Dietsch will not be held liable.

The rule of caveat emptor applies since the buyer has full opportunity to make an examination of the pills before beginning any diet.

Any person who took the pills and did not lose weight could sue Porter &Dietsch under the usury laws.

2. A mechanic was attending to an automobile that had defects. In the process of trying to fix the defect, the mechanic was injured. What is the mechanic’s position in relation to the injury?

One who does not have a contractual relationship can still sue on the theory of breach of warranty; hence, the mechanic can sue the company.

The rule of caveat emptor applies since the buyer has had the full opportunity to make an examination of the goods that would disclose the existence of any defect.

There can be no suit for breach of warranty unless privacy of contract exists between the plaintiff and the defendant.

The mechanic cannot file a suit since, in the absence of fraud on the part of the seller, the maxim called caveat emptor applies, putting the onus back on the buyer and not on the seller.

3. Sperry Rand contracted with Industrial Supply Co. to supply Industrial with upgraded computers and inventory control systems. An employee of Sperry Rand spent several days at the Industrial facility to better understand their processes and design the inventory control system to Industrial’s needs. Actually, the Sperry Rand employee copied existing software already produced by Codex, Inc., and Industrial was found liable for infringing Codex’s software patent. Which of the following is true regarding Sperry Rand and Industrial?

Industrial is not liable to Sperry Rand because Industrial breached its implied warranty against infringement in giving Sperry Rand specific instructions regarding its software needs.

Sperry Rand is not liable to Industrial because Industrial received value in the transaction.

Sperry Rand is liable to Industrial because suppliers of computer equipment may be held strictly liable.

Sperry Rand is liable to Industrial because Sperry Rand breached its implied warranty against infringement in supplying Industrial with Codex’s software.