Webster brought an action against the Blue Ship Tea Room for personal injuries s

Question

Webster brought an action against the Blue Ship Tea Room for personal injuries she sustained when she swallowed a fish bone contained in a bowl of the Blue Ship Tea Room’s fish chowder. Her theory was breach of implied warranty of merchantability. A jury rendered a verdict for her. Blue Ship Tea Room appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts “sympathized with a plaintiff who has suffered a peculiarly New England injury,” but entered a judgment for Blue Ship Tea Room. No breach of warranty had occurred. The question was whether fish bones made chowder unfit for eating. “[T]he joys of life in New England include the ready availability of fresh fish chowder. We should be prepared to cope with the hazards of fish bones, the occasional presence of which in chowders is, it seems to us, to be anticipated, and which, in the light of a hallowed tradition, do not impair their fitness or merchantability.” This is a landmark case in Massachusetts where fish and clam chowder are common. Whether the same result would prevail in a state in which chowder is not so common is open for conjecture. Please answer the following questions regarding this case: 1) Was Webster’s cause based on negligence? Why or why not? 2) Would the result have been different if Webster had asked whether the chowder was bone-free? 3) What if Webster had told Blue Ship Tea Room that the chowder was for a child? 4) If Webster had made the chowder herself from a recipe that she had found on the Internet, could she have successfully brought an action against its author for a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability?

Explanation / Answer

case:

Q1) Was Webster’s cause based on negligence? Why or why not?

Ans Webster’s cause in not based on negligence. It is rather based on the prima facie evidence which forced her to think fish chowder has been the sole reason for the injuries. It is very obvious that chowder is made from various veg and non- veg ingredients. Fish chowder is a type of chowder made with salmon, cod, or other fish. It is similar to the more popular clam chowder. Common ingredients in addition to fish include potatoes, onions, celery, corn, carrots, and bacon. So it is clear that it contains fish in a refined way and it is obvious that it may contain the element of the fish which might not be refinded fully. Blue chip team room may be help responsible for not refining it ingredient fully and here in this case it failed partially to grinds that item fully, But also in other cases fish who have sharp slip edges and it is a well-known fact that edges are present in the fish and if a person buy that fish which is full of edge and consume one of the edge which caused him harm, in this case it is the person responsibility to eat properly and separate edges from the meat, if he is unable to do so it is his fault.

Q2) would the result have been different if Webster had asked whether the chowder was bone-free?

Ans This is very legitimate question raised here. Before going before magistrate she should have checked whether the fish chowder is bone free or not, is it allowed for Blue ship team room who sells Fish chowder to have ingredients’ like fish bone in the chowder. It had asked this question there was high chances that decision been in favor of Ms. Webster. But what happened she had not examined this fact and went straight to the court in agony. This case should not fight on these ground, it should examine the basics. If Webster been able to prove that they are not allowed to have fish bones in the fish chowder there was high changed that judgment in her favor.

Q3) what if Webster had told Blue Ship Tea Room that the chowder was for a child?

And If Webster had told that blue shop team room chowder is exclusively for the kid’s results must be different. As a child they don’t have the much capacity to swallow hard object like fish bones, it must be in the pure grinded form. If it does not meet this expectation child parents have the full right to sue the company. But in the current case, it was not fought on this ground it was fought on the general ground.

4) If Webster had made the chowder herself from a recipe that she had found on the Internet, could she have successfully brought an action against its author for a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability?

Ans- In this case there are two things present first is the actions of hers and seconds is understanding and skills of her to make the fish chowder. Here both the things play its part. She has bought all the vegetables and fish on her to make fish chowder; she might bough those fished who have sharp edges or bough those fishes that don’t have edges only have bones and meat. In both the scenarios it is a high possibility that some element may left out of grinding as she don’t have that much of sophistication to have zero errors. So her action will be to prepare the fish chowder and her understanding will be to make the dish successfully. In both the scenario author neither responsible not liable for any of the wrong done to her while consuming the fish chowder as it is the implication of her understating and action. There is no question of the breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.