Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Answer the following legal problems. Support your responses with appropriate cases, laws, and other relevant examples. Legal Problem 2:
Answer the following legal problems. Support your responses with appropriate cases, laws, and other relevant examples.Legal Problem 2: Lois Cranston lived in an apartment with her sons in Las Vegas. The hot water supply to their apartment was heated by a BestBuilt water heater, which had a temperature control device on its exterior, manufactured by Hanson Devices (Hanson) and sold to BestBuilt. Larry Landlord, the owner of the apartment building, had purchased and installed the water heater. The water heater was located in the basement of the apartment.Extensive warnings were provided on the water heater itself and in the manual given to Landlord at the time of his purchase. The warning on the water heater read "CAUTION: Hot water increases the risk of scald injury." The heater itself contained a picture of hot water coming from a faucet with the words "DANGER" printed above it. In addition, the water heater had a statement on it:Water temperature over 120°F can cause severe burns instantly or death from scalds. Children, disabled, and elderly are at highest risk of being scalded. Feel water temperature before bathing or showering. Temperature limiting valves are available, see manual.In the BestBuilt manual, a similar warning appeared.On October 1, 1992, 15-month-old Billy Cranston was being bathed by his 15-year-old brother, David. When the telephone rang, David left Billy alone in the bathtub. No one else was home with the boys, and David left the water running. Billy was scalded by the water from the tap. Billy and his mother brought suit against BestBuilt and Landlord, alleging defects in the design of the water heater and Landlord’s failure to warn her about the heater’s dangers.Can Lois prevail in a product liability lawsuit against BestBuilt and Hanson? Why or why not? Legal Problem 3: A buyer purchased an engine to operate an irrigation pump. A label on the engine stated that it would produce 100 horsepower. The buyer needed an engine that would generate at least 80 horsepower. In actual use in the buyer's irrigation system, the engine generated only 60 horsepower. The buyer sued the seller for damages. The seller raised the defense that no warranty of fitness for the buyer's particular purpose of operating an irrigation pump had arisen because the seller did not know of the use to which the buyer intended to put the engine. Also, the buyer had not relied on the seller's skill and judgment in selecting the particular engine.Did the seller of the engine have any liability based on warranties? Why or why not?Type your answers in a three- to four-page Microsoft Word documentCite any sources you use using APA format on a separate page. "
