Answer:
Bearing in mind that it was Davidson that recommended the rope while stating the specific of the rope. The specifics of the rope would be considered facts, it is this facts that the court would find to be bounded to the warranty. On his part, Moon only stated the fact that he needs rope for his farm, but does not specify what he needs it for. The recommendation by Davidson for that specific rope is based only on the details that it would be used for the farm. This is pointing that, Moon is relying entirely on the seller, who knows about the product, to recommend him a type of rope.
However, there is need to put into consideration that Moon does not specify the exact use of the rope. This implies that Davidson states the he recommends the use of that specific rope.
With the argument back and forth between seller and buyer, there is no warranty at the instance that the seller breached an implied warranty of merchantability, but one can argue there was a
breach of implied warranty of particular purpose if it is taken into consideration that the use of that particular rope is not usually used in farms.
Explanation:
See answer
Explanation:
<u>Philadelphia Convention.</u>
Answer:
They actually become amendments, and cited as so in the statute; Congress is where the final ratification is carried out.
Antigua and Barbuda
hope this helps!
btw make me brainliest?
