In the late nineties, Jumpstarter, Inc. became aware that its product Jumpstart I-- a pacemaker designed to regulate heartbeat within the body -- had begun to fail when the temperature rose to above normal body temperature. The company asked hospitals with unused units of Jumpstart I to return them for credit and advised doctors to remove any Jumpstarter I products that had been implanted in patients.
Bob Hartley required several major open chest surgeries to correct problems that occurred because of the Jumpstart I. After settlement negotiations broke down, Hartley sued Jumpstarter, Inc. Hartley claimed that the Jumpstart I could have been made safer through inexpensive tests and use of an alternative design.
Plaintiffs: Develop a case for Hartley. On what theory can he recover from Jumpstarter, Inc.?
What should his damages be?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com September 18, 2018, 9:11 pm ad1c9bdddf - https://brainmass.com/business/strategy-and-business-analysis/jumstarter-vs-hartley-574865
Hartley can recover on the basis of the theory of implied warranty. Specifically, this means that there was an implied warranty of fitness. The pacemaker is supposed to regulate heartbeat when temperature rose above the normal level. The particular purpose of the pacemaker was to regulate heartbeat inside the body of the patient. The ...
The solution to this problem explains Jumpstarter Inc and Hartley case related to pacemaker implant, and suggests what Hartley could have done to develop the case . The references related to the answer are also included.