Case Defense

CaseDefense

Underthe theory of negligence, there must be proof that the arraignedparty failed to include necessary requirements in a system. In thiscase, ACME presented a complete chassis and cab. The absence ofalarms does not render the truck incomplete and cannot stand asnegligence.STE modified the truck for its purpose and installed allthe necessary components. The provision of negligence holds only tothe seller and the manufacturer.

Underthe theory of express warranty, the manufacturer, that is ACME truck,only provided the cab and the chassis. Keefer motors sold the truckunmodified to the Albany city. The information on the intended use ofthe truck was only available to the city of Albany and Susan truckequipment. The modification done on the truck should have beencomprehensive for the intended tasks. There is no evidence to showthat the manufacturer indicated that the truck had backup alarms. Thecity took the truck as usable and is, therefore, not liable for theclaim (Twomey&amp Jennings, 2013).

Thebreach of implied warranty of fitness and merchantability has nogrounds for the manufacturer and the seller. The rule only holds whenthe product does not undergo modifications (Twomey&amp Jennings,2013). The seller may only be liable if he sells the product forfinal use without it having to pass through the hands of anothercompany for additional features. The city opted to modify the truckfor its intended use. Therefore, the manufacturer and the seller haveno liability to the resulting condition of the truck aftermodification. STE did not remove anything from the truck apart fromadding some modification. There is no indication to show that alarmswere necessary for the modifications.

Underthe strict tort liability, the liability exists regardless of theclass of the injured person. However, it only holds in the case of animportant omission of a primary component. STE failed to warn thecity of Albany about the missing alarm though they made modificationsbecause the alarms were not part of the important modifications onthe truck. KM could not warn the city of Albany about the missingalarms since they were not primary components of the vehicle. Forthis reason, the three of them are not liable under the strict tortliability

References

Twomey,D., &amp Jennings, M. (2013). BusinessLaw: Principles for Today’s Commercial Environment.Cengage Learning: New York.