1

Kirin King
BUSN 101
Case Studies CH 12

Case Studies Chapter 12

127.
The court would rule on the side of Apple. Just for the plain fact that By contrast, the
defect alleged in this case is that one of the iBook G4's components "wears out or breaks over time
because of use" at a rate faster than consumers would reasonably expect ( "VITT

v. APPLE

COMPUTER, INC", 2014). It wasnt a matter of somethings being defective and a recall must be
issued but that it wore out faster than expected because of use. Also if this would have happened before
the 1 year warranty was up, that warranty would have covered the issue, but the warranty did not expect
further than that 1 year, and the person in question did not get an extended warranty on the lap top.
Here is the conclusion of the case file:
Vitt's argument that Apple's express warranty is procedurally and substantially unconscionable because it
is an exculpatory contract that has the effect of "releasing [Apple] from responsibility for its own fraud" is
without merit ("VITT

v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC", 2014).

128.
Yes he will recover damages from this phone call. For sever all reasons best
summarized in the case file.
Further, 15 U.S.C. 1692c(b) provides in part that: [A] debt collector may not
communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other
than the consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise
permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the
debt collector. Section 1692d of Title 15 provides as follows: A debt collector may
not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress,
or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the
general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this
section ("Engler v. Atlantic Resource Management, LLC", 2015).
There are many reasons listed in the case file but I found these very important.
They are not allowed to speak with anyone but the person in question about the
debt, and two they are not allowed to harass. Finding these along with other
reasons valid, the court must find in his favor.
Conclusion from the case file:
IV. CONCLUSION Forthe foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment is
granted. Plaintiff is awarded $500 in statutory damages and $1,500 in actual
damages. Additionally, Plaintiff is awarded $2,411 for attorneys fees and costs
("Engler v. Atlantic Resource Management, LLC", 2015).

2
Kirin King
BUSN 101
Case Studies CH 12

3
Kirin King
BUSN 101
Case Studies CH 12
References

Engler v. Atlantic Resource Management, LLC, No. 1:2010cv00968 - Document 15 (W.D.N.Y. 2012).
(2015, January 1). Retrieved March 19, 2015, from
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nywdce/1:2010cv00968/81948/15/
VITT v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC. (2014, January 1). Retrieved March 19, 2015, from
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In FCO 20120228243