Reply to Alicia Smith

Reply to Alicia Smith

Hello Alicia,Your description of the Vincente v. Johnson case comprehensively explains the plaintiff’s complaints on the design effects, manufacturing defect, failure to warn and the breach of implied and express warranty. The plaintiff had filed a case against the company and wanted $7500 compensation because of the severe personal injury and the financial losses due to the company’s manufacturing of the defective product (Vicente v. Johnson & Johnson, 2020). The compensation gets based on the motorcycle accident, which resulted in the plaintiff needing surgery. Severe challenges occurred during the surgery where parts of the screw broke. Consequently, the explanation of the design defect gives the reader an in-depth depiction of how the manufacturer’s design caused the accident. Moreover, the company’s failure to warn creates a notion that the company should provide a warning to the usage of the items manufactured to enable users to use the item with precaution (Jennings, 2022). Continuous depiction of the false advertisement that the company generated creates my perception to support your argument. Furthermore, I agree with your description of the contract product liability and warranty theory which enables the company to define the warranties according to the product.

Sources:

Vicente v. Johnson & Johnson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240643, 2020 WL 7586907 (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey December 21, 2020, Filed). https://advance-lexis-com.libdatab.strayer.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:61K7-GG01-JNS1-M019-00000-00&context=1516831.

Jennings, Marianne. (2022) Business: It’s the legal, ethical and global environment (12th edition) Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.