Answer:
a) In the sale of a used car, several warranties can be at issue. For instance, there may be express warranties on the car or parts. There may also be implied warranties, including the implied warranty of merchantability, which means that the car is "reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used." In this case, it means that the car will drive without major issues and works as a car should.
b) In this case, the father is selling the car with an odometer that reads half the miles that the car actually has on it. The number of miles on a car is an indicator of how long the car will last and is visible to the seller before they purchase it. Arguably, the promise of how many miles is on the car is an express warranty.
c) The buyer would have to show that the car does not perform to the reasonable expectations of how a car should perform. For instance, if it does not start, if suddenly stops working, etc. Those factors would indicate that the car is not merchantable because it does not perform as a car should.
Answer:
a) The expectation is for an ordinary consumer. A child would not be an ordinary user of a utility lighter. Thus, the mother's expectations would be used in measuring the dangerousness of the product.
b) In this case, the court should not dismiss the case. C acted reasonably by trying to keep the lighter from her child by placing it on a top shelf. Although this may be deemed to be a faulty way of keeping the lighter out of her chid's hands, there were reasonable efforts. As far as the manufacturer, the previous cases indicate they had knowledge the device had caused similar injuries to children. They were put on notice of this possible design defect but did not take measures to make it safer. They could be held to a negligence standard because of this fact.
Answer:
Unfortunately for B, despite the lack of contractual relationship with the injured C, product manufacturers are liable for any foreseeable users of their product, even the ones that did not purchase the product directly.
B could argue that C assumed the risk because a) C knew about the the sparks flying and it was foreseeable she could get hurt and b) C voluntarily assumed this risk by continuing to blow dry her hair.