Author Question: When an agent pays for the right to have authority for a business, a(n) ______ is created. a. ... (Read 34 times)

lilldybug07 · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

When an agent pays for the right to have authority for a business, a(n) ______ is created.
a. shared agency
b. agency with permission c. agency with rights
d. general agency
e. none of the other choices are correct

Question 2

Consumer Welfare. The father of an eleven-year-old child sued the manufacturer of a jungle gym because the manufacturer had failed to warn users of the equipment that they might fall off the gym and get hurt, as the boy did in this case. The father also claimed that the jungle gym was unreasonably dangerous (a ground, or basis, for liability under product liability law) because, as his son began to fall and reached frantically for a bar to grasp, there was no bar within reach. The father based his argument in part on a previous case involving a plaintiff who was injured as a result of somersaulting off a trampoline. In that case

Carissamariew · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

e

Answer to Question 2

Consumer welfare
The court hearing the case was not convinced by the father's arguments. Rather, the court held that certain risks, such as falling off a jungle gym, are so obvious that manufacturers need not warn of them. In its decision, the court applied the age-old common-sense principle: If you fall, you might get hurt.
Today's manufacturers are plagued by product liability suits, many of which strain the limits of one's legal imagination. There is, after all, something called common sense, and most courts agree that consumers should expect to incur certain risks when they use particular products. For example, if a consumer is cut by a sharp knife, the manufacturer should not be held responsible for that injury because the risk was obvious and inherent in the nature of the product. Similarly (one would think), manufacturers of playground equipment should not have to bear responsibility for injuries sustained by children who fall off such equipment, providing the equipment itself is not faulty. But many consumers view the matter otherwise, and in recent years, a number of casesincluding the Cozzi casehave come before the courts in which plaintiffs allege that manufacturers of playground equipment should be held liable for injuries sustained by children while playing on the equipment.