Question

4. Express Warranties. FACTS: Ronald Anderson, Jr., a self?employed construction contractor, went to a Home Depot store to buy lumber for a construction project. It was raining, so Anderson bought a tarp to cover the bed of his pickup truck. To secure the tarp, Anderson bought a bag of cords made by Bungee International Manufacturing Corp. The printed material on the Bungee bag included the words “Made in the U.S.A.” and “Premium Quality.” To secure the tarp at the rear of the passenger’s side, Anderson put one hook into the eyelet of the tarp, stretched the cord over the utility box, and hooked the other end in the drainage hole in the bottom of the box. As Anderson stood up, the upper hook dislodged and hit him in the left eye. Anderson filed a suit in a federal district court against Bungee and others, alleging in part breach of express warranty. Anderson alleged that the labeling on the bag of cords was an express warranty that “played some role in [his] decision to purchase this product.” Bungee argued that, in regard to the cords’ quality, the statements were puffery. Bungee filed a motion for summary judgment on this issue. ISSUE: Will the court grant the motion? Why or why not? RESOLUTION: [Anderson v. Bungee International Manufacturing Corp., 44 F.Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)] How did the court answer the questions? What did the court decide? EXPLANATION-Do you agree with the court? Why or why not? Can you change any facts to give a different result?

Answer 1

Yes. The court will grant the motion. While Anderson cites an express warranty with the product, there is no mention of the correct product usage. Equipment such as tarp and chords usually comes with detailed instruction of use. However, if that instruction is not followed, it is possible to get hurt. In such case, there may be no valid case at all. Hence the court will grant the summary judgement motion.

Court allows the summary judgement motion in the actual case as well.

Yes I agree with the court. The reason being, that it was proven at the court that Bungee provided enough documentation with instructions and warning to properly use the chord. However, Anderson did not follow those instruction. As a result the hook distorted, dislodged and hurt him.

The only change of fact which would give a different result is, if the hook had distorted and broken and hurt Anderson. In that scenario, the case would be in favor of Anderson as it would prove that negligence and poor manufacturing on behalf of Bungee