Jumpstarter Inc. vs. Bob Hartley
Name
Institution
Jumpstarter Inc. vs. Bob Hartley Introduction Jumpstater Inc had developed a product, Jumpstarter I, which was a pacemaker intended to regulate the heartbeat of an individual in the body. At the end of the nineties, the company discovered that the device became faulty when the body temperature increased above normal. To reverse the damage, the firm asked the medical facilities that had any unused product to return them to the company for credit. Additionally, Jumpstarter Inc. advised practitioners to remove any device that had already been implanted in the patients. Bob Hartley, a physician that had used the product in some of his patients, had to perform some serious open-heart surgeries to remove the pacemaker to correct any problems. Following the settlement negotiations between Hartley and the company, the practitioner sued Jumpstarter Inc. Bob claimed that the firm could have made their product safer through reliable tests as well as the use of substitute designs. This paper presents a case for Hartley against Jumpstarter Inc and the theory that he can use to recover from the company. Additionally, the paper presents the defenses the accused can apply in the case. Plaintiff Bob Hartley can recover from the company if he would stand in the theory of implied warranty. According to the theory, a promise made to a consumer from the operation of the law means that a product that is sold would be fit and merchantable to the purpose of its sale. In this case, the theory comes in two basic assertions, which are fitness and merchantability (Murthy & Blischke, 2006). In merchantability, the contract between the buyer and the seller is unspoken and unwritten, which guarantees the consumer that purchased goods adhere to the acceptable standards of care. Additionally, the goods should be of the same