Rampart Security Case Study

838 Words4 Pages

When Rampart Security was hired by Nationwide Discount Furniture to install an alarm in its warehouse, Rampart Security took on the obligation of notifying Nationwide immediately in the event that a fire should set off an alarm in Rampart’s office. When a fire did breakout, Rampart allegedly failed to notify Nationwide, causing the fire to spread next door and damage a building owned by Gasket Materials Corp. By failing to notify Nationwide of the fire, Rampart failed to complete their delegated responsibilities, thereby breaching their contract with Nationwide. Though Rampart had no contract or delegated responsibilities towards the Gasket Corporation, the neglect of their responsibilities to Nationwide did result in damages to Gasket property. …show more content…

wanted to promote its “California -style” pizza, to sell in supermarkets, they contracted with the Highland Group, Inc., to produce 2 million recipe brochures. Highland then contracted with Comark Merchandising to print the brochures which would then be inserted in the carton when the freshly baked pizza was still very hot. However, when Comark asked for details concerning the pizza, the carton, and so forth, Highland refused to supply them with the information. The hot bread from Boboli’s pizza caused the ink to run on Comark’s first lot of 72,000 brochures, and customers opening the carton often found red or blue splotches on their pizzas. Comark then sued for breach of contract when Highland refused to accept any additional brochures and Highland defended by claiming that Comark had breached its warranty of merchantability. Though Highland’s defense initially sounds legitimate, Highland‘s failure to communicate unique standards and their mishandling of Comway’s product is what actually compromises the products merchantability. Comark should hold enough special knowledge about their product to manufacture it in order to withstand temperatures that would not render the product unsuitable for its intended purpose. However, Highland’s refusal to provide Comark with information concerning the pizza and carton details dismisses Comark from its warranty of merchantability as it forces Highland to fall under the strict liability standard. Highland’s mishandling of Comark’s product by exposing it to extreme temperatures is what caused the ink to leak onto the pizza and possibly endanger customer health. This falls under the subsection of the strict liability standard: defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user. “The defendant is liable only if the product is defective when it leaves his hands. There must be something wrong with the goods. If they are reasonably safe and the buyer’s mishandling of the goods causes the harm, there is no

Open Document