. Analogy and Legal Reasoning: Answer the highlighted question. Henry paid a dog
ID: 3445854 • Letter: #
Question
. Analogy and Legal Reasoning: Answer the highlighted question.
Henry paid a dog breeder $500 for a pit bull. Prior to the purchase the breeder assured him that the dog would not bite anyone in the household unless it was provoked. Henry brought the dog home, and it gradually became a member of his rowdy family. However, after 10 months, without being provoked, the dog bit his wife, causing serious injury. Henry then filed a lawsuit against the breeder claiming damages for a defective product. After filing the suit Henry discovered that his dog’s male parent was vicious.
There are two controlling cases in this jurisdiction:
Carter v. Ace Electric: Carter bought an electric hairdryer from manufacturer Ace Electric. The hairdryer had a defective ground connection, and Carter suffered injury as a result of this defect. The court ruled in favor of Carter, noting that Ace knew or should have known about this defect at the time the hairdryer was made.
Baker v. Harlow Motors: Baker purchased a new car from Harlow Motors, and after 10 months the engine stopped running. During that interval Baker had made several modifications to the engine. The court ruled in favor of Harlow because Baker had modified the engine.
Construct two arguments (1 paragraph each), one supporting Henry, the other supporting the breeder.
Explanation / Answer
1. The case should go in favor of Henry as he was not informed about the vicious background of the dog . He had a right to know that the male side of the dog was vicious . Hiding this information purposely amounts to befooling the client with malicious intention . Therefore the breeder is at fault and Henry should be compensated .
2. The case should g in favor of the breeder . He informed henry about the vicious nature of the dog and told him not to provoke the dog. The dog has been with the family for more than 10 months and did not bite any one . This much time is enough to accept that the dog was a good one and not vicious in nature . Some circumstances at Henry's place would have provoked him to bite his wife and therefore breeder is not at fault . In this case the breeder should be freed with his honor as he has not done anything wrong .
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.