Priscilla, who worked for a dry cleaner, came up with a great new idea for a type of press that speeded up the process immensely. She quit her job, hired labor and purchased materials, and manufactured a number of the presses. She sold the presses to her friend Phil for resale. Phil began advertising and distributing the press, but was notified by ABC Company that the sales violated its patent. After investigation, Phil determined that ABC had the better argument and demanded that Priscilla refund the purchase price. Priscilla declined on the basis that she had no idea that a patent on a similar press was in existence. Who will likely win the dispute and why?

Multiple Choice

• Phil will likely win, because Priscilla violated the implied warranty of merchantability.
• Phil will likely win, because Priscilla violated the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
• Priscilla will likely win, because she had no knowledge of any previous patent.
• Priscilla will likely win, because she had no knowledge of any previous patent and because the duty was on Phil to investigate whether any patents existed prior to his purchase of the presses.
• Phil will likely win, because Priscilla violated the warranty of title.