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?

Jill cannot hold the manufacturer responsible for her injury.

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.

answer; strategic planning;