Reference no: EM131233049

1. If Mark decides to put the TF-300 fans that his company manufactures on the market, and the fans are considered to be an unreasonable dangerous product, the party who was injured would not need to prove:

the defendant must have acted with intent to cause harm.

the defective condition must be the proximate cause of the injury or damage.

the defendant must normally be engaged in the business of selling or distributing that product.

the plaintiff must incur physical harm to self or property by use or consumption of the product.

2. If Mark's company enters into the contract to sell the TF-300 fans that they manufacture to Rooms-to-Go and a purchaser is injured by the fan, under strict liability, which would be liable for the injuries?

Both Mark's company and Rooms-to-Go.

Neither Mark's Company nor Rooms-to-Go.

Marks' Company only.

Rooms-to-Go only.

3. If Mark's company enters into the contract to sell the TF-300 fans that they manufacture to Rooms-to-Go and a purchaser is injured by the fan, under strict liability, and a person who did not purchase the fan is injured by debris coming off of the fan while at a friend's house. Decide:

only Mark's company would be liable to the injured party since they are in privity of contract with the ultimate purchaser.

only Rooms-to-Go would be liable to the injured party since they are in privity of contract with the ultimate purchaser.

Both Rooms-to-Go and Mark's company would be liable.

neither Rooms-to-Go nor Marks company would be liable since neither is in privity with the injured party.

4. If the TF-300 fans that they manufacture are put onto the market, Mark's company may be liable for injuries if the fans are unreasonably dangerous and the problem with then fans stems from:

a failure to warn not to hit the reverse switch while the fan is moving.

a manufacturing defect.

a design defect.

All of these.

5. If Mark decides to put the TF-300 fans that his company manufactures on the market, and the fans are considered to be an unreasonable dangerous product. Assume that Mark insisted on putting a label on the remote control stating "Do not put into reverse mode while the fan is spinning." If someone were then injured by the fan because they put the fan in reverse while it was spinning, which defense would Mark's company likely use?

The company would likely use the preemption defense.

The company would likely use the assumption of risk defense.

The company would likely use the knowledgeable user defense.

The company would likely use the market-share liability defense.