Business Law Case Study: Implied Warranties

Carrie visited a neighborhood store to purchase some ham, which a salesperson cut by machine in the store. The next day she made a ham sandwich. In eating the sandwich, Carrie bit into a piece of cartilage in the ham. As a result, Carrie lost a tooth, had to undergo root canal treatments, and must now wear a full-coverage crown to replace the tooth. Is the store liable for the damage? Why?
Under Implied Warranties, Chapter 9 of the textbook (Don Mayer), these are those that circumstances alone compel reading into the sale. It is created by law, acting from an impulse of common sense. Also, the seller must pass the test of merchantability, which according to the textbook are:
“What is merchantability? Section 2-314(2) of the UCC says that merchantable goods are those that conform at least to

Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description;
2. In the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description;
3. Are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used;
4. Run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality, and quantity within each unit and among all units

Cases for this type of test are: Jim Dandy Fast Foods, Inc. v. Miriam Carpenter, 535 S.W. 2d 786 (Tx. Civ. App. 1976); Zabner v. Howard Johnson’s Inc., 201 So. 2d 824 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967). According to DeConti, the reasonable expectation test is the majority rule in the United States, and the last state to adopt it was Main, (55 A. 3d at 6). The case from where Maine adopted the reasonable expectation test, according to DeConti, “the court found that the question of whether a consumer would reasonably expect to find a turkey bone sufficient to cause esophageal perforation in a “boneless” turkey product was one for the