It's A Hot Quarantine Day In Southern California And Jack De

Its A Hot Quarantine Day In Southern California And Jack Determines

It’s a hot quarantine day in Southern California, and Jack decides that this would be a good day to buy a trailer hitch for his new 2021 F-150 Ford Raptor so he can take his boat/trailer to the lake for some fishing. Jack has never owned a truck, let alone a boat. After some online research, Jack visits Glendora Trailer Hitches and Welding (GTHW), a large store and service center specializing in welding, fabrication, custom cargo racks, and standard or custom ball mounts and hitches. Jill, an employee who has been working at GTHW for over two years and is a certified welder, assists Jack. Jack admits he knows nothing about hitches and relies on Jill’s expertise to recommend the correct one.

Jill, familiar with F-150 Ford Raptors, suggests a GTHW custom 1.0 heavy-duty 6-inch drop/rise hitch, quoting a quarantine price of $400 cash, which includes installation and a 5-year warranty covering parts and labor. Jack agrees and provides Jill with $400 in cash, which she accepts. Jill completes the sale and installs the hitch on Jack’s truck.

Subsequently, Jack takes his newly equipped truck and boat to Lake Tahoe. During the trip, the hitch fails to hold the boat, which causes the boat to dislodge. This results in Jack swerving off the road into a ditch. It is later discovered that the 2021 F-150 Ford Raptor requires a 2.0 heavy-duty 6-inch drop/rise hitch, not the 1.0 heavy-duty 6-inch hitch Jill sold and installed. Jill failed to verify the specifications suitable for Jack’s truck model, leading to the incorrect hitch being used. Consequently, Jack suffers soft tissue injuries in his neck and back, and his boat sustains $5,000 worth of damage due to the dislodgement.

Paper For Above instruction

The scenario presents multiple legal issues rooted in contractual obligations, negligence, and product liability law, particularly concerning the sale and installation of a hitch and its subsequent failure resulting in injury and property damage. Using the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) methodology, we analyze these issues comprehensively.

Issue 1: Was there a breach of contractual obligation regarding the sale and installation of the hitch?

The primary issue involves whether GTHW, through Jill, breached its contractual obligations when selling and installing the hitch. The sale was executed when Jack paid $400 cash, and Jill completed the installation, arguably creating a contractual relationship. A breach could be established if GTHW failed to provide products that conform to the agreement or failed to perform services properly.

Under contract law, a seller has an obligation to deliver goods that meet the specifications agreed upon. Moreover, an installer has a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in installing products. Jill's recommendation of a 1.0 hitch for a vehicle that actually requires a 2.0 hitch demonstrates a failure to meet these obligations. Jill's expertise as a certified welder and her familiarity with F-150 Raptors impose a duty to verify specifications before sale and installation.

Given that the hitch was incorrectly specified for Jack’s vehicle, the sale and installation can be viewed as a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, as the hitch failed to perform its intended function safely. Furthermore, Jill's oversight in verifying compatibility evidences a failure to exercise reasonable care, constituting a breach of her contractual and professional duties.

Issue 2: Was GTHW negligent in its sale and installation of the hitch?

Negligence arises when a party breaches a duty of care that causes damages. Here, GTHW, through Jill, had a duty to ensure that the hitch sold and installed was appropriate for Jack’s vehicle. Jill, as a certified welder with over two years of experience, had a duty to exercise reasonable care, particularly given her assumed expertise in welding and trailer hitches.

The failure to verify the specifications for the vehicle and to recommend an incorrect hitch demonstrates a breach of this duty. If Jill's failure to confirm correct specifications amounted to negligence, GTHW could be liable for damages resulting from this breach, including injuries to Jack and damage to his property.

Furthermore, the failure to provide proper guidance about the appropriate hitch model directly contributed to the accident, satisfying the causation requirement in negligence law. The foreseeability of harm, such as the dislodgement of the boat and injuries caused by the accident, supports a negligence claim against GTHW.

Issue 3: Is GTHW liable under strict product liability for the failure of the hitch?

Strict product liability holds manufacturers and sellers liable when a product is defectively designed, defective in manufacturing, or lacks proper warnings, leading to injury or property damage. While Jill did not manufacture the hitch, GTHW, as the seller, may be liable if the hitch was defectively designed or if the failure to verify specifications resulted in a defect.

The hitch sold was unsuitable for the vehicle, classifying it as a product defect. The improper specification directly contributed to the dislodgement, and GTHW’s role in selling and installing the hitch makes them potentially liable for damages under strict liability principles. Because the hitch failed during use due to incorrect specifications, GTHW may face liability even absent negligence.

Issue 4: Did GTHW breach any warranty that led to the damages?

Warranty doctrine includes express warranties, created by specific statements about product quality or performance, and implied warranties, such as merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Jill's suggestion of a 1.0 hitch for a vehicle requiring a 2.0 hitch could constitute an implied warranty of suitability that GTHW failed to honor.

The failure to provide a hitch appropriate for Jack’s vehicle breached this implied warranty, entitling Jack to recover damages for injuries and property loss. Additionally, the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose—where a seller knows the specific use for the product—was violated when the wrong hitch was recommended and installed, contributing to the accident.

Conclusion

In conclusion, GTHW, through Jill, likely breached contractual obligations by failing to verify the correct specifications for the hitch suitable for Jack's 2021 F-150 Ford Raptor, constituting both a breach of contract and negligence. GTHW can also be held liable under strict product liability for the defective hitch that caused the dislodgement and subsequent damages. The failure to exercise reasonable care and ensuring compliance with vehicle requirements resulted in injuries to Jack and damage to his property. Therefore, Jack has substantial legal grounds to seek damages based on breach of contract, negligence, and strict liability theories under the applicable laws.

References

• Berger, D. (2018). Business Law & the Regulation of Business. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Cavazos, H. (2019). Contract Law: Cases, Materials, and Problems. Foundation Press.
• Dobbs, D. (2016). The Law of Torts. West Academic Publishing.
• Farnsworth, E. (2010). Farnsworth on Contracts. Aspen Publishing.
• Kinney, S. (2020). Product Liability Law. Wolters Kluwer.
• Miller, R. L., & Jentz, G. A. (2018). Business Law Today: The Essentials. Cengage Learning.
• Poole, J. (2017). Insurance Claims Handling: A LR's Guide to Effectively Handling Claims. CRC Press.
• Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability. (1998). American Law Institute.
• Schweitzer, M. (2021). Negligence: Doctrine and Theory. Oxford University Press.
• Scott, R. E. (2017). Contract Law. Aspen Publishing.