BARAB V. MENFORD
98 F.R.D. 455 (1983)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Channel (D) filed a motion to file and serve a third-party complaint
upon Joy Plastics. Menford (D) nor Barab (P) objected to the motion. P had brought an action
for injuries caused by a doormat that Channel (D) allegedly sold Menford (D).
FACTS: Channel (D) filed a motion to file and serve a third-party complaint upon Joy
Plastics, Inc. Both P and Menford (D) had no objection to Channel's (D) motion. Channel (D)
is alleged to have sold to Mendford (D) the doormat which allegedly caused the injuries to
P. Channel (D) denied selling the doormat and after having the doormat inspected by one of
its buyers, it was able to identify the proposed third-party defendant, Joy Plastics, Inc.,
as the manufacturer and/or seller. Channel (D) contends that it could not reasonably have
discovered the identity and involvement of the proposed third-party defendant at an earlier
date because Channel (D) had no records of the sale or purchase of the product and Joy
Plastics, Inc., was not a supplier of the product to Channel (D).
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment