As to the theory.... I'm no attorney but I have more than passing expertise in contract law. Merchantability is indeed as York describes but the issue in this point is whether the merchant breached the implied warranty. For example:
As I understand the defect, it is cosmetic in nature and does not effect the airworthiness. I'm guessing the legal question would hinge on whether this constitutes a 'flaw'. IMHO, York would also have to demonstrate that this defect is not common among average CTs stored in the same manner. Don't know if this is the case or if enough data exists to support either view.The question of whether goods are fit for their ordinary purpose is much more frequently litigated. Thomas Coffer sued the manufacturer of a jar of mixed nuts after he bit down on an unshelled filbert, believing it to have been shelled, and damaged a tooth. Coffer argued in part that the presence of the unshelled nut among shelled nuts was a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Unquestionably, Coffer was using the nuts for their ordinary purpose when he ate them, and unquestionably, he suffered a dental injury when he bit the filbert's hard shell. But the North Carolina appellate court held that the jar of mixed nuts was nonetheless fit for the ordinary purpose for which jars of mixed nuts are used (Coffer v. Standard Brands, 30 N.C. App. 134, 226 S.E.2d 534 [1976]). The court consulted the state agriculture board's regulations and noted that the peanut industry allows a small amount of unshelled nuts to be included with shelled nuts without rendering the shelled nuts inedible or adulterated. The court also noted that shells are a natural incident to nuts.
Is a perforated aileron a nut shell? You make the call
