Inez contracted with Filippo Furnaces Co. for the installation of a new furnace. Inez selected the furnace she wanted, accepting no suggestions from Filippo Furnaces' heating engineer. The furnace operated fine, but it did not heat the entire house. The size of the blower on the furnace was too small to accommodate the third floor of the house. Inez sued Filippo Furnaces Co. for the breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness. What result?
What will be an ideal response?
Inez will lose under both implied warranties.The implied warranty of merchantability was not breachedbecause the furnace was operating according the standards of the heating industry.The implied warranty offitness was likewise not breached.This warranty requires the seller to know of the buyer's particularpurpose and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment in recommending a particular product.Here Inez did not ask for or receive any suggestions from the seller or the seller's expert
You might also like to view...
Under the cost principle, assets are always carried at their original cost or historical cost
a. True b. False Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Name four documentation techniques
A greater focus on underlying customer needs than on existing customer wants leads to marketing myopia
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Singer and McMann are partners in a business. Singer's original capital was $40,000 and McMann's was $60,000. They agree to salaries of $12,000 and $18,000 for Singer and McMann respectively and 10% interest on original capital. If they agree to share remaining profits and losses on a 3:2 ratio, what will McMann‘s share of the income be if the income for the year was $30,000?
A) $20,000 B) $18,000 C) $18,600 D) $17,400