In this case, the implied warranty was breached by the manufacturer since the air conditioner was faulty and did not according to the expectations of Mr. Lake. Implied warranties are described as unspoken and unwritten assurances by the seller (manufacturer) to the buyer that the goods that the goods bought work properly (Corley and Black, 2006). Under Article 2, there are two types of warranties the implied warranty of merchantability and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (Kubasek et al, 2011). For the case of Lake, the implied warranty of merchantability applies that entails a promise that the goods sold are good and in working order and will serve the purpose the buyer intends. Mr. Lake expected the air conditioner to regulate the temperature in the house accordingly but due to a fault in the system the mechanism failed due to loss of Freon gas that acts as the main source of coolant. It is important to note that the unit bought was operated and installed as per the manufacturer’s specifications, and Mr. Lake was, therefore, not at fault for the problem that later manifested in the refrigeration system. The manufacturer breached the implied warranty of merchantability (Kubasek et al, 2011).

For a manufacturer to be liable for consequential damages caused by a breach of warranty, the consequential damages must be foreseeable to the manufacturer. Was Lake’s death a foreseeable consequence of the air conditioner’s failure to operate correctly?

As aforementioned, the manufacturer had breached the implied warranty of merchantability for selling a faulty air conditioner to Mr. Lake. However, for the manufacturer to suffer consequential damages the manufacturer ought to have foreseen the consequential damages (Corley and Black, 2006). The death of Mr. Lake was; as a result, of a faulty air conditioner, but the manufacturer could not have foreseen the events given the facts that he had on the sale agreement. When selling the product the manufacturer did not foresee Mr. Lake suffering from hyperthermia and then death due to circulatory failure. The manufacturer may argue that, Mr. Lake was okay before he bought an air conditioner, and the equipment was not acquired to prevent hyperthermia but rather for air conditioning. The manufacturer is not liable for the health of Mr. Lake as the use of the product was to protect the air conditioning and not prevent against hyperthermia. There are no consequential damages in this case. In a hypothetical case of X, and Y, where X is a seller of perishable goods, and Y the seller of refrigerators: In the event that X loses his merchandise due to a fault in the refrigerator he can only sue Y for damages to the goods and not the profits that would have been realized had the merchandise been sold. In Lake’s case, the executor cannot demonstrate that the death of Lake could have been foreseen by the manufacturer when he sold the air conditioner, therefore, the manufacturer cannot suffer consequential damages.

References

Corley, R. N., & Black, R. L. (2006). The legal environment of business (3d ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kubasek, N., Brennan, B. A., & Browne, M. N. (2011). The legal environment of business: a critical-thinking approach (6^th edition). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.