Business Law

1.) Concerning the Raymond vs. Shoddy Motors case, there are several legal theories that may hold Shoddy Motors liable for the injuries Raymond sustained. The first legal theory would be breach of implied warranty. Although it was not stated in the transcript that Shoddy Motors sold their cars under warranty, it can be assumed that the product was warranted to be of a certain quality because that is the standard in that market. Also under the Uniformed Commercial Code, and merchant who sells a product automatically promises that it is fit for ordinary purpose.1

The second legal theory that Shoddy Motors may be liable under would be negligence. In a similar case, "Weimer v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc," Toyota had failed to meet safety and quality standards for many of their models between the years 2005-2010. One of the causes of action the plaintiffs based their case on was the count of negligence. According to the case, Toyota had a duty to the plaintiffs to provide a safe product in design and manufacture, and to notify and warn the NHTSA of the product defects.2 Toyota also breached its duty of reasonable care by manufacturing the unsafe vehicles and not enacting a timely recall, resulting in negligence. It is my opinion that Shoddy Motors would be held to be negligent under the same circumstances.

Another legal theory that Shoddy Motors may be held liable under would be products liability. Under the doctrine of strict liability, it allows for plaintiffs who are injured by using an unsafe product to sue the manufacturer much more easily than it has been in the past. In Section 402A of the Restatement of Torts (Second), it states: "One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer or to his property."3

2.) It is my opinion that Raymond will be successful in the lawsuit because of the following reasons. Auto makers are required by the NHTSA to meet certain safety requirements and are subject to fines if those requirements are not met. Title 49 of The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard clearly outlines these standards, standard numbers 109, 110, 117, 119, 120, 129, and 138 all dealing specifically with standards for tires. Shoddy Motors clearly failed to meet these standards. It is my opinion that Raymond will also be successful in his lawsuit because of the legal theories stated in question 1. Shoddy Motors certainly breached its duty of reasonable care to Raymond and its other consumers by manufacturing and selling a product that was assembled in a defective manner. It is also my opinion that Shoddy Motors would be found liable for the injuries sustained by Raymond because their products presented an unreasonably dangerous situation, regardless if used in a reasonable manner. Shoddy Motors also perpetrated a breach