Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Accident (1)
- Aerospace (1)
- Air (1)
- Air Travel (1)
- Carriage (1)
-
- Carrier (1)
- Circuit (1)
- Comparative Law (1)
- Conflict (1)
- Courts (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Law (1)
- Legal (1)
- Liability. (1)
- Montreal (1)
- Montreal Convention (1)
- Skies (1)
- Sky (1)
- Space (1)
- Transport (1)
- Transportation (1)
- Travel (1)
- Unexpected (1)
- Uniform Commercial Code (1)
- Unusual (1)
- Warsaw Convention (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Torts
Surprises In The Skies: Resolving The Circuit Split On How Courts Should Determine Whether An "Accident" Is "Unexpected Or Unusual" Under The Montreal Convention, Ashley Tang
Washington Law Review
Article 17 of both the Montreal Convention and its predecessor, the Warsaw Convention, imposes liability onto air carriers for certain injuries and damages from “accidents” incurred by passengers during international air carriage. However, neither Convention defines the term “accident.” While the United States Supreme Court opined that, for the purposes of Article 17, an air carrier’s liability “arises only if a passenger’s injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger,” it did not explain what standards lower courts should employ to discern whether an event is “unexpected or unusual.” In 2004, …
The Warranty Of Merchantability And Computer Software Contracts: A Square Peg Won't Fit In A Round Hole, Edward G. Durney
The Warranty Of Merchantability And Computer Software Contracts: A Square Peg Won't Fit In A Round Hole, Edward G. Durney
Washington Law Review
Courts have consistently held that Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) governs transactions involving computer hardware. Treatment of computer software transactions has been less consistent. This Comment contends that computer software, an intangible, is not within the scope of Article 2. It further contends that the warranty of merchantability cannot meaningfully be applied by analogy in computer software contracts. Finally, this Comment concludes that existing tort and contract causes of action provide software users with sufficient protection.