Author Question: Gregory went to Collegiate Sports Ltd. with his dad, who asked for some shoes for Gregory suitable ... (Read 2873 times)

kodithompson · **on:** Aug 7, 2021

Gregory went to Collegiate Sports Ltd. with his dad, who asked for some shoes for Gregory suitable for playing squash. Gregory was given a pair of running shoes suitable only for jogging. His dad paid by cash. That evening, wearing the new shoes while playing squash, Gregory broke his ankle. In the ensuing lawsuit, the statement of claim cited the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. Which of the following is true if it were proven that the shoes were inappropriate and the cause of the injury?
◦ Gregory's father would be the proper plaintiff in this action and could win on the claim that the goods were not fit for purpose.
◦ This is not a sale of goods situation because Gregory's father paid by cash.
◦ Only Gregory can sue since he was the only one hurt.
◦ This is a "buyer beware" situation and there would be no remedy for anyone.
◦ Gregory's father could win for breach of contract because he made known the purpose for which he wanted the shoes to a shoe dealer.

Sassygurl126 · **Reply #1 on:** Aug 7, 2021

A FREE account is required to view all solutions!

Lorsum iprem. Lorsus sur ipci. Lorsem sur iprem. Lorsum sur ipdi, lorsem sur ipci. Lorsum sur iprium, valum sur ipci et, vala sur ipci. Lorsem sur ipci, lorsa sur iprem. Valus sur ipdi. Lorsus sur iprium nunc, valem sur iprium. Valem sur ipdi. Lorsa sur iprium. Lorsum sur iprium. Valem sur ipdi. Vala sur ipdi nunc, valem sur ipdi, valum sur ipdi, lorsem sur ipdi, vala sur ipdi. Valem sur iprem nunc, lorsa sur iprium. Valum sur ipdi et, lorsus sur ipci. Valem sur iprem. Valem sur ipci. Lorsa sur iprium. Lorsem sur ipci, valus sur iprem. Lorsem sur iprem nunc, valus sur iprium.

Answer Preview

Only 64% of students answer this correctly