Mrs. Quale bought a new sewing machine from Androcles' Sewing Centre because she thought that, as well as using it herself, her daughter, Susan, would also be able to use it for her high school home economics projects. Unfortunately, because of a manufacturing defect, the machine ran wild when Susan was using it and it destroyed her project, sewed the end of her finger, and sprayed oil all over the carpet. Androcles' Sewing Centre had bought the machine from Midmen Distributors Ltd., which had bought it originally from the manufacturer, General Stitchers Inc. Which one of the following statements is false with respect to the available remedies in this situation?
▸ Androcles' has an action for breach of contract against Midmen Distributors.
▸ Midmen Distributors Ltd. bears no liability here because it was just an intermediary in the distribution chain.
▸ Mrs. Quale has an action against Androcles' for breach of an implied condition of reasonable fitness for a particular purpose.
▸ Susan has an action in tort law against General Stitchers Inc.
▸ Midmen Distributors Ltd. has an action against General Stitchers Inc. for breach of an implied condition of merchantable quality.
Quick Reply
