turmeric
Megerator
I would really appreciate help from Fred Greco (lawyer turned parson) or VictorBravo or any other members in the legal professions;
On my Business Law midterm I was asked to read MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.(1016) and state what principle important to contract law allowed Justice Cardozo of the New York Court of Appeals to change this from a contract law case to a tort law case. I chose privity. Am I on the right track?
For the curious, MacPherson is a case where the plaintiff purchased a car from a Buick dealer and was injured when the car collapsed because of a defective wooden wheel. The car was going only 8 miles an hour. The judge ruled (on appeal by Buick) that MacPherson deserved compensation even though he hadn't actually contracted with Buick, because the car, which could go a dizzying 50 miles an hour, could presumably injure someone if constructed badly, even though the wheels were not manufactured by Buick. Confused yet? Me too, a little.
Thanks, legal folks, for any help in thinking about this!
On my Business Law midterm I was asked to read MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.(1016) and state what principle important to contract law allowed Justice Cardozo of the New York Court of Appeals to change this from a contract law case to a tort law case. I chose privity. Am I on the right track?
For the curious, MacPherson is a case where the plaintiff purchased a car from a Buick dealer and was injured when the car collapsed because of a defective wooden wheel. The car was going only 8 miles an hour. The judge ruled (on appeal by Buick) that MacPherson deserved compensation even though he hadn't actually contracted with Buick, because the car, which could go a dizzying 50 miles an hour, could presumably injure someone if constructed badly, even though the wheels were not manufactured by Buick. Confused yet? Me too, a little.
Thanks, legal folks, for any help in thinking about this!
