BLAW 3310 EXAM 2 ALL CASE STUDIES
1. what was the holding of Siavage v. Gandy?: held that anyone, including a lawyer, can be liable for
fraud if they participate in the fraud.
2. what was the holding of mcpherson v. buick?: the defendant was not absolved from duty of
inspection because it bought wheels from a reputable manufacturer, it was responsible for the final product.
3. what did baxter v. ford motor say about advertisements and express war- ranties: an
express warranty was a part of the contract because of the advertising promise made to consumers; Ford was found
liable for failing to provide a shatterproof windshield on a car, despite advertising that safety feature.
4. what did greenman v yuba power products say about manufacturers of defective
products?: manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be
used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being
5. what did the court in parish v. ICON say about when manufacturers are not liable for
injuries suffered from their products?: companies are only liable for injuries that are foreseeable
regarding their products; if companies put disclosures then they are not held liable
6. what shih v. starbucks corp says about liability for unforeseeable uses of a
company's product?: if a reasonable person cannot foresee the use of a company's product then the
company is not held liable
7. what did the four b properties v. nature conservancy court say about how
conservation restricts: the property runs with the land, means all owners are bound by it
8. in neilson v. gold's gym, what did the court say about the requirements for a lease to
be enforceable?: the terms must be clear
9. what did the RDNT, LLC v. city of bloomington court say about the city's decision to
now allow the RNDT to expand its assisted living business: the city can
make any laws if it's for the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. if the city believed that it was in the public's best
interest to not have the 8% increase, then they can do that
1/3
1. what was the holding of Siavage v. Gandy?: held that anyone, including a lawyer, can be liable for
fraud if they participate in the fraud.
2. what was the holding of mcpherson v. buick?: the defendant was not absolved from duty of
inspection because it bought wheels from a reputable manufacturer, it was responsible for the final product.
3. what did baxter v. ford motor say about advertisements and express war- ranties: an
express warranty was a part of the contract because of the advertising promise made to consumers; Ford was found
liable for failing to provide a shatterproof windshield on a car, despite advertising that safety feature.
4. what did greenman v yuba power products say about manufacturers of defective
products?: manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be
used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being
5. what did the court in parish v. ICON say about when manufacturers are not liable for
injuries suffered from their products?: companies are only liable for injuries that are foreseeable
regarding their products; if companies put disclosures then they are not held liable
6. what shih v. starbucks corp says about liability for unforeseeable uses of a
company's product?: if a reasonable person cannot foresee the use of a company's product then the
company is not held liable
7. what did the four b properties v. nature conservancy court say about how
conservation restricts: the property runs with the land, means all owners are bound by it
8. in neilson v. gold's gym, what did the court say about the requirements for a lease to
be enforceable?: the terms must be clear
9. what did the RDNT, LLC v. city of bloomington court say about the city's decision to
now allow the RNDT to expand its assisted living business: the city can
make any laws if it's for the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. if the city believed that it was in the public's best
interest to not have the 8% increase, then they can do that
1/3
