A tenancy for a period and a periodic tenancy are the same ...

[vinney12]

A tenancy for a period and a periodic tenancy are the same interests.
  Indicate whether the statement is true or false

Question 2

Sal was at home going through his normal workout when he bent his barbell bar. Sal is a professional bodybuilder, and this fact is obvious from his appearance. Sal went to his local sporting-goods store and was approached by a clerk wishing to assist him. Sal told the clerk about his problem and the clerk asked Sal to wait while an appropriate bar was located. The clerk presented Sal with a bar that the clerk said is just what you need for your type of weight requirements. Sal paid for the bar and was returning home when he stopped at a health food restaurant. The drink that he ordered had an unusual taste, but the food establishment refused a refund. Sal became ill from the drink, which, as it turned out, had a toxic substance in it. Sal had to be hospitalized. When Sal was able to work out again, he attached the weights to the new bar and lifted the bar under his chin. The bar snapped in the middle and severely cut Sal. Sal is angry about the drink and the barbell. What are the applicable warranties involved? Does Sal have a cause of action?

[Leostella20]

Answer to Question 1

FALSE

Answer to Question 2

The sale of food or drink is a sale of goods. When such a sale is made by a merchant, as is the situation in this case, there is an implied warranty that the drink is fit for human consumption. Because the drink contained a toxic substance, there was a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, allowing Sal to recover damages. This would be the court's finding regardless of whether the jurisdiction in which the case is tried applies the foreign substance/natural substance liability test or the reasonable expectations test.
Under an implied warranty of fitness for normal use, there is liability if a product fails when it is being utilized in an ordinary manner. In this case, the barbell did not perform normally.
The sporting goods store could argue that Sal placed too much weight on the bar and that this constitutes misuse or assumption of the risk. However, Sal could argue that an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose existed. The clerk knew of Sal's purpose. Sal relied on the clerk to pick the appropriate bar. It also was obvious from Sal's appearance that the amount of weight that the bar would have to withstand would be substantial.