FSU Implied Warranty of Merchantability and Implied Warranty of Fitness Questions

Background:With some understanding of the legal system, the Viral Clean (“Clean”)owners can now shift their focus to examining specific areas of law thatcreate potential risks and liabilities for their business. The groupknows from their business experience that companies face severe andcostly risks and legal liabilities stemming from tort law. Unintentionalharm resulting from accidents, such as negligence, can result in costlylitigation. The Clean owners are concerned about the possibility ofaccidents resulting in injuries to their employees that could occurduring cleaning clients’ property. Winnieand Ralph have given you the responsibility of analyzing andsummarizing potential negligence claims and liability that Clean mightface in its business operations. You decide to analyze a hypotheticalfact scenario to present to the Clean owners to help explain Clean’spotential negligence liability for accidents occurring on clients’property during cleaning. The analysis will be presented at the nextmeeting with Clean’s owners and TLG. Your analysis will address only the tort of negligence.Background Facts You Need To Know:Jack,a Clean employee, was assigned to clean and disinfect Client A’s officebuilding. Jack’s first task was to vacuum the floors in a widehallway. Jack plugged Clean’s commercial vacuum cleaner into thehallway outlet with an extra-long electrical cord and began vacuuming.Before beginning vacuuming, Jack checked to ensure that the hallway wasclear of obstacles and people walking. After checking the hall, heplaced the cord to the side of the hallway out of the path of hispushing the vacuum. After vacuuming for a few minutes, Jack stepped tothe side to turn the vacuum and tripped over two boxes that had beenplaced in the hallway by Client A’s employee since Jack beganvacuuming. Jack did not know the boxes had been placed in the hall.Jackfell and broke his ankle and was taken to the hospital ER viaambulance. A cast was applied after it was determined the ankle did notneed surgery. Jack missed three weeks of work because of the injury.

Background/Facts: During a monthly Lunch and Learn Seminar at TLG offices, all TLG business consultants are discussing various client cases. During the discussion of Clean’s new business, the group discusses the following questions:

(1) What is the difference between the implied warranty of merchantability and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose?

(2) Analyze and explain specifically how and why Clean could be sued for breach of implied warranty of merchantability for using EPI cleaning products to clean Clean’s clients’ commercial property. `