The world’s Largest Sharp Brain Virtual Experts Marketplace Just a click Away
Levels Tought:
Elementary,Middle School,High School,College,University,PHD
| Teaching Since: | May 2017 |
| Last Sign in: | 408 Weeks Ago, 4 Days Ago |
| Questions Answered: | 66690 |
| Tutorials Posted: | 66688 |
MCS,PHD
Argosy University/ Phoniex University/
Nov-2005 - Oct-2011
Professor
Phoniex University
Oct-2001 - Nov-2016
Zogarts manufactured and sold a practice device for beginning golfers. According to statements on the package, the device was completely safe, and a player could never be struck by the device’s golf ball. Hauter was hit by the ball while using the device. He sued Zogarts, which denied liability on the ground that the statements were merely matters of opinion, so liability could not be based on them. Was this a valid defense? [Hauter v Zogarts, 534 P2d 377 (Cal)]
Hel-----------lo -----------Sir-----------/Ma-----------dam-----------Tha-----------nk -----------You----------- fo-----------r u-----------sin-----------g o-----------ur -----------web-----------sit-----------e a-----------nd -----------and----------- ac-----------qui-----------sit-----------ion----------- of----------- my----------- po-----------ste-----------d s-----------olu-----------tio-----------n.P-----------lea-----------se -----------pin-----------g m-----------e o-----------n c-----------hat----------- I -----------am -----------onl-----------ine----------- or----------- in-----------box----------- me----------- a -----------mes-----------sag-----------e I----------- wi-----------ll