Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
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 Menford (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).
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co