Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Case Notes
Mobile Home Not Unreasonably Dangerous
Purchasers of a manufactured mobile home failed to prove that the home, as designed with pre-drilled utility connections in the sub flooring and exterior, was unreasonably dangerous to an extent that would be contemplated beyond the ordinary and prudent buyer or user of the product. Dimick v. OHC Liquidation Trust, successor in interest to Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc., Case No. 20050969-CA, Court of Appeals of Utah, March 1, 2007.
On May 18, 1998, Happy Homes ordered a manufactured home from Oakwood. In June 1998, the home was delivered to the Happy Homes' sales lot. On March 11, 2000, Christopher Dimick and his mother Catherine Dimick toured the home. During the tour, they were exposed to deer mouse droppings and nests. Christopher contracted to purchase the home after the tour, and the home was delivered to Christopher's property. On May 27, 2000, Catherine became ill with hantavirus and died on May 30, 2000. Christopher suffered permanent disability as a result of his exposure to hantavirus. On April 11, 2002, Christopher filed an action against Oakwood as a result of the exposure to hantavirus from the deer mouse nests and droppings while taking the tour of the mobile home. He claimed strict liability, wrongful death, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, negligent failure to warn, and premises liability.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?