Sample Business Case Study Paper on Legal Environment: Warranty and Disclaimer

Core of Authority: Stare decisis

The case Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation contradicts the core of authority by applying stare decisis from a misinterpreted history. Similar cases from the past have been interpreted wrongly by the “Lemon Law” and do not apply to this case, Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation. In addition, Lemon Law and the Warranty Act do not offer a definition of “warranty”. Therefore, they fail to possess the central core of authority of the judicial branch for the failure of accommodation of such a crisis.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

It is an American law that governs all the warranties of any American purchaser products. The law was instituted in 1975 declaring the power of the federal government over such warranties. The purpose of the law is to fix issues resulting from manufacturers manipulation of warranties and disclaimers in an unfair and misleading way. This law overlooks the case of Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation and ensures that the manufacture, Chrysler does not misuse express warranties and disclaimers on Bill Parrot.

State Lemon Laws

Lemon laws were enacted to aid the car and automobile purchasers in US in get a compensation for products and goods that fail to meet the required standards of performance and quality. Despite there being many defective products, the lemon term mostly refers to defective motor vehicles, like motorcycles, trucks, SUVs, and automobiles.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

Consumer: (I) the real buyer, (II) anyone to whom the product is transferred while the written warranty still exists, or (III) any individual authorized to impose the written warranty.

Consumer Product: A personal property like an automobile, furniture, an appliance that is strictly used for personal, family or household duties.

Qualifying sale: it is the situation in which a consumer purchases a consumer product without original intent to resell the product.

A written warranty is written promise in a link to the sale of a consumer product between a buyer and a seller. It affirms and states the details of their business and ensures that the product confers with a specified level of performance over a period. If there is a violation, then the product will be replaced or the money refunded.

Christine Seney v. Rent-A-Center, Inc: The Test

To determine if the transaction qualified as a sale, the court majored on two things: the party that possessed the title and the real intent of the contracts. A distinction fact from the case showed that the lease was not the economic value of the sale of the car. Therefore, the test showed an absence of a qualifying sale.

Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation: Test for Sale

The test used by Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation was to determine if any stage of the transaction hinted any possibility of resale. Another perspective is that the Pitre-Parrot contract does not clearly establish a key requirement that the contract does not include a resell.

Christine Seney v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., AND Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation

The best test to use to impose the will of the constitution is the Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation test. The test, in this case, looks to improve the loopholes in the Arizona law that Christine Seney v. Rent-A-Center, Inc uses, since manufacturers hoard the title in leases to help them evade their warranty.

Remedies in Arizona Lemon Law

The Arizona lemon law states that the dealer of “lemon” automobile will replace it with a properly running automobile and two, there be a refund of the original money spent by the consumer on the “lemonized” product.

The rejection of Bill Parrots’ claim by the Arizona Lemon Law

A requirement for a replacement of the “lemonized” car is a change of ownership. Since Bill Parrot did not acquire the title, a symbol for a sale, his case does not qualify as a sale hence the replacement rejection. In addition, Bill Parrot could not get a refund because the terms of contracts, in this case, did not qualify the transaction as a sale.

Complex Adaptive System

The law is a form of a complex adaptive system since it works on the principle of interacting conditions that reinforce the other. Bill Parrots’ case is reinforced by the case of Christine Seney since the two cases are used to complement the loopholes that another possesses to better improve and help the system adapt. These changes are both internal and external.