Q: Delineate the landmark judgement of Henningson v. Bloomfield Motors Inc ?

Ans: CLAUS H. HENNINGSEN AND HELEN HENNINGSEN, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS ANDCROSS-APPELLANTS, v. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS, INC., AND CHRYSLER CORPORATION,DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND CROSSRESPONDENTS. Supreme Court of New Jersey. (May 9, 1960).

The Plaintiff bought a car from a dealer and the car started to malfunction within 10 days of delivery which resulted in the Plaintiff’s wife suffering injuries, it was held by honourable Supreme Court of New Jersey that the Plaintiff had to get remedy because it was a breach of the implied warranty of safety. The fact that it was the plaintiff’s wife and not the plaintiff who got hurt is no excuse as the product liability extended to every foreseeable user.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Elucidate the citation of C.N.Anantharam vs M/S Fiat India Ltd.& Ors.Etc.Etc on 24 November, 2010 ?

Ans:  C.N.Anantharam vs M/S Fiat India Ltd.& Ors.Etc.Etc on 24 November, 2010 The honourable Supreme Court held that it appears that apart from the complaint relating to noise from the engine and the gear box, there was no other major defect which made the vehicle incapable of operation, particularly when the engine was replaced with a new one. However, in addition to the directions given by the National Commission, the honourable Supreme Court directs that if the independent technical expert is of the opinion that there are inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the petitioner will be entitled to refund of the price of the vehicle and the lifetime tax and EMI along with interest @ 12% per annum and costs, as directed by the State Commission .
Read more

Q: Elucidate the citation of Maruti Udyog Ltd vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr on 29 March, 2006 ?

Maruti Udyog Ltd vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr on 29 March, 2006 The honourable Supreme Court held that respondent no.1 taking the vehicle in question to the authorized service centre of the appellant at Jammu within three weeks, the defective part that is clutches assembly shall be replaced. Respondent no.1 shall not be required to pay any charge for the replacement. In addition, respondent no.1 shall be entitled to receive a consolidated sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) from the appellant for cost of travel to Karnal which admittedly was wrongly advised by the appellant, for the inconvenience caused to respondent no.1 on account of the acts of the appellant and the respondent no.2 and the cost of litigation.
Read more

Q: Describe the citation of Avinash Yadav v. Wonderchef, 2019 ?

 Ans:  Avinash Yadav v. Wonderchef District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Aug 1, 2019 The honourable court held that this complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly or severally to either replace the defective product i.e. gas chullah in question with a new one or to refund its price subject to the return of the defective product in question by the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The complainant is also permitted compensation alongwith litigation expenses of Rs. 5500/- against the opposite parties. Ordered accordingly. Announced 01.08.2019. x
Read more