Wentzel v. Berliner Parts of a Case Quiz
Quiz Summary
0 of 8 Questions completed
Questions:
Information
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You must first complete the following:
Results
Results
0 of 8 Questions answered correctly
Your time:
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 point(s), (0)
Earned Point(s): 0 of 0, (0)
0 Essay(s) Pending (Possible Point(s): 0)
Categories
- Not categorized 0%
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Current
- Review
- Answered
- Correct
- Incorrect
- Question 1 of 8
1. Question
What part of the case is shown below?
Wentzel v. Berliner
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District, 1967 204 So. 2d 905
CorrectIncorrect - Question 2 of 8
2. Question
What part of the case is shown below?
Plaintiff-appellants are appealing from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant-appellee.
CorrectIncorrect - Question 3 of 8
3. Question
What part of the case is shown below?
The plaintiffs suffered food poisoning which was allegedly contracted as a result of eating food served at a church fundraising dinner. Defendant, a professional food caterer, was a member of the church and assisted in the preparation of the food.
CorrectIncorrect - Question 4 of 8
4. Question
What part of the case is shown below?
Plaintiffs’ suit was based solely on the allegation that defendant had breached an implied warranty of fitness.
CorrectIncorrect - Question 5 of 8
5. Question
Which part of the case is shown below?
The pleadings, affidavits and depositions show that defendant was not engaged in a business venture but was acting merely as a member of the church who was interested in helping with the dinner. There was no contract between defendant and plaintiffs or between defendant and the church. Furthermore, at no time was defendant acting as a vendor.
CorrectIncorrect - Question 6 of 8
6. Question
Which part of the case is shown below?
Admittedly, there need be no contractual privity between a plaintiff and defendant in a suit based upon breach of implied warranty of fitness of foodstuffs. Blanton v. Cudahy Packing Company, Fla. 1944, 19 So. 2d 313. However, before the doctrine of implied warranty of fitness is applicable, there must be something more than mere voluntary activity on the part of the defendant.
CorrectIncorrect - Question 7 of 8
7. Question
Which part of the case is shown below?
The trial court did not err by entering summary judgment.
CorrectIncorrect - Question 8 of 8
8. Question
Which part of the case is shown below?
Affirmed.
CorrectIncorrect