Need business and finance help with a warranty question

Business & Finance
Tutor: None Selected Time limit: 1 Day

defend or refute the reasonableness in the overall use of an express warranty versus an implied warranty. Provide support for your position.Provide your opinion as to whether or not the government should be allowed to use disclaimers as a means to avoid the implied warranty of adequacy. Defend your opinion.

Nov 15th, 2015

Thank you for the opportunity to help you with your question!

Most consumer purchases are covered by an implied warranty of merchantability, which means it is guaranteed to work as claimed. For instance, a vacuum cleaner that does not create enough suction to clean an average floor is in breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Federal law defines "merchantable" by the following criteria:

  • They must conform to the standards of the trade as applicable to the contract for sale.
  • They must be fit for the purposes such goods are ordinarily used, even if the buyer ordered them for use otherwise.
  • They must be uniform as to quality and quantity, within tolerances of the contract for sale.
  • They must be packaged and labeled per the contract for sale.
  • They must meet the specifications on the package labels, even if not so specified by the contract for sale.
Now the importnat thing is that an express warranty doesnt revoke the implied . So if a product have an expressed warranty its simply an additional benefit and should be considered as such by the purchaser meaning as an additional layer of security . 

The doctrine  "implied warranty of adequacy",means that the government is responsible to provide accurate plans and specifications to its contractors rather than the presumption of superior knowledge. Tha bares a cost for the goverment because to provide those accurate plans you need to employ experts on the matter, form committees and pay them . Beraucracy will extent further the problem . Although inconvinient for the goverment to do that and also costly it is prefferable to do so because you cannot rely on the good will of the contractor to comply to a general outline which by the way gives him a loose path to follow as guidelines havent been set specificly . To get the matter even further in a hypothetical dispute between a contranctor and the goverment in that loose directive the contractor can evade blame so the goverment is called upon to pay the cost. And what if the cost isnt material damages and its human lifes or ecological disaster (meaning theres no way restore the system to its previous condition) . Thus disclaimers arent a good practise it falls upon the goverment to safeguard the quality of the work of its contractors by laying the strict outlines of their obligations . 

Please let me know if you need any clarification. I'm always happy to answer your questions.
Nov 15th, 2015

Did you know? You can earn $20 for every friend you invite to Studypool!
Click here to
Refer a Friend
...
Nov 15th, 2015
...
Nov 15th, 2015
Dec 10th, 2016
check_circle
Mark as Final Answer
check_circle
Unmark as Final Answer
check_circle
Final Answer

Secure Information

Content will be erased after question is completed.

check_circle
Final Answer