Answer:
The implied warranty for fitness for a purpose has been breached.
Explanation:
The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose occurs when the seller understands that the product is suitable for carrying out a specific activity and assures the buyer that when purchasing the product the activity will be carried out successfully. This activity is something very specific and is guaranteed with the purchase. As we can see in the question above, the seller assured Carr that the motorcycle he was buying was suitable for the race he wanted to participate in, but that was a lie, since the motorcycle did not have enough power to carry out the race. In this case, we can say that the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose has been violated.
The answer is "the social-conflict approach".
The social conflict approach is a way to deal with social theory that contends that society is described by different disparities and clashes that reason individuals to act socially, delivering change.
Society, according to the social conflict approach, isn't amicable. It's not steady. Society doesn't create agreeable balance. Truth be told, it's overflowing with imbalance. So this methodology is extremely about investigating imbalances of race, class, sexual orientation, and ethnicity, and the social clashes which result. Basically, these contentions will result in change, changes that will move society.
The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
