In the given case, Jeff, the customer, purchased skis in Sport Chalet, and one of them was broken due to the defect in the fiberglass. The Court is likely to rule that the salesperson was negligent to Jeff, the plaintiff while advising him to buy Rossignol skis for downhill skiing. Since it was recommended to the customer to focus his attention specifically on the mentioned skis, the given case may be identified as showing the salesperson’s (the defendant) mistake. Even though all cross-country skis are intended to be applicable to downhill skiing, it was possible to recommend some other models. As the customer received injuries, he needs compensation.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
Chapter 143 – Section 71N (G. L. c. 143, 71N) identifies the duties of ski area operators (Schubert 201). It is stated that operators and sellers should be attentive to the products they offer by noting any potentially harmful issues. The lack of the mentioned aspects may be due to the fact that a company does not have clearly defined standards for the actions of the sales manager in the workplace or that the standard has not been properly communicated to the employees. During the presentation of a product, many consultants pay insufficient attention to its description and do not delve into the consideration of important details and advantages. The client may have the impression that the seller has insufficient knowledge of the product and may receive an erroneous perception.
In this case, the plaintiff was told by the defendant that Rossignol skis are the perfect solution for downhill skiing. In fact, the industry standards declare that all cross-country skis should be able to cope with downhill skiing. The customer has not clarified the above issue. It is critical to stress the fact that the law identified in the previous section was not properly followed, and the plaintiff suffered both financial and physical damage. It is essential to pinpoint that negligence of the defendant may also be traced in the product defect. It was the responsibility of the salesperson to reveal defects and send products back to the manufacturer. Instead, he failed to detect Rossignol skis’ defect sold to the given customer.
The industry standards should also be analyzed with regard to the given case. The review of the mentioned law shows that the statutory scheme reveals no protection options for skiing area operators and salespeople. In other words, the law requires them to be responsible for skiing accidents caused by equipment defects. In general, the ski industry seems to be in need of enhancing the standards related to safety and negligence elimination (Fulbrook 138). From this perspective, the negligence of the salesperson identified in the case may be regarded as unintentional yet detrimental to the customer. Therefore, the responsibility for Jeff’s losses should be assigned to the mentioned defendant.
To conclude, it is essential to emphasize that the given case study was considered from two angles. On the one hand, the industry standards prescribe that all cross-country skis may be used for downhill skiing in spite of the increased loads. On the other hand, the salesperson had to clarify the above requirement to the customer to make him decide on the purchase having full information. Since negligence along with the product defect took place and led to significant damage to the customer, the guilt of the salesperson should be recognized.
Schubert, Frank August. Introduction to Law and the Legal System. 11th ed., Wadsworth Publishing, 2015.
Fulbrook, Julian. Outdoor Activities, Negligence and the Law. Routledge, 2017.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as