Question

Lexi buys a food processor and uses it without any problems. She loans the processor to Jill, and Jill is injured when a part flies off the machine. If the former rule of privity of contract were in place, which of the following would be true?

Answer 1

If the former rule of privity of contract were in place, Lexi would not be held liable for Jill's injury caused by the food processor. Jill's only recourse would be against the manufacturer or seller of the machine. The rule of privity of contract has been modified in many jurisdictions.

Step-by-step explanation:

If the former rule of privity of contract were in place, Lexi would not have any legal responsibility for Jill's injury caused by the food processor. The rule of privity of contract states that only the parties who are directly involved in a contract can enforce its terms or be held liable for any breaches. In this case, Lexi and Jill did not have a contract between them, so Lexi would not be held liable.

Under the former rule of privity of contract, Jill's only recourse would be against the manufacturer or seller of the food processor. If there was a defect in the machine that caused the injury, Jill could potentially file a lawsuit against the manufacturer or seller for damages.

However, it's important to note that the rule of privity of contract has been modified in many jurisdictions, and third parties like Jill may now have some legal rights and remedies even if they are not directly involved in the contract.

Answer 2

Jill cannot hold the manufacturer responsible for her injury.

Step-by-step explanation:

The above question is incomplete as there are several answer options which are listed below;

• Jill can hold the manufacturer liable for her injury as long as Lexi was in the room when she got

• Jill can hold the manufacturer liable for her injury

• Jill cannot hold the manufacturer responsible for her injury

• Lexi can hold the manufacturer liable for Jill's injury.

The above answer - Jill cannot hold the manufacturer responsible for her injury, is true according to the rule of privity of contract. The rule states that a person who is not a party to a contract does not have right to sue or be sued and to enforce the obligations arising from the contract, unlike a person who is a party to the contract.

With regards to the above scenario, Lexi, who buys a food processor is the party to the contract here, hence can sue and be sued in case of any injury suffered by her, however, Jill whom food processor was loaned to, is the third party here, hence not covered by the rule of privity of contract.