Introduction In the Greenman v. Yuba Supreme Court case, the plaintiff is William B. Greenman, and the defendant is the commercial company Yuba Power Products, Inc. Greenman sued the manufacturer because of the attachment to his Shopsmith power tool, produced by Yuba, after a short time of impeccable functioning and injured him by throwing a piece of wood he was working with. The position taken by the defendant was that the plaintiff overlooked the defects of the power tool on time, and this was treated as a sufficient reason not to decline his warranty claim. The main issue of the Greenman v. Yuba case is whether the defendant is strictly liable in tort if the manufactured product occurs to be defective. The court granted the plaintiffs motion and ruled in favor of the retailer where the Shopsmith and the attachments were purchased, whereas Yuba Power Products was held strictly liable in tort. History As the result of the trial before the jury, the court acquitted the third party of this conflict – the retailer where Mr. Greenman and his wife purchased a Shopsmith and the accomplishing details. Instead, it had been proven that the actions of the retailer could not anyhow affect the quality and the safety of the purchased good (Freeman, 2016). This decision is based on the absence of evidence of the retailers breach of warranty. Yuba Power Products also was not found guilty of a warranty breach. The jurys verdict was that the manufacturer should award the plaintiff $65,000. After this trial, Mr. Greenman and Yuba lodged an appeal and the former provided sufficient evidence that the experienced injury resulted from the defects in some of Shopsmiths details. This evidence was based on the opinion of experts who revealed that, indeed, the construction utilized by the manufacturer was not efficient and safe and caused the discussed incident. More precisely, the independent experts discovered that the screws did not hold the lathe parts as tight as expected (59 Cal. 2d 57, 377 P.2d 897, 27 Cal. Rptr 697, 1963). Furthermore, Mr. Greenman did not face any issues with the tool from the very beginning because it took some time for the inadequate screws to loosen the connection between the machine elements. In addition, the expertise had proven that the defendant did not check its products for defects before putting them on the market. Therefore, the brochure attached to Shopsmiths misleads the consumers since it does not reflect the actual condition of the tool. Decision The ultimate decision of the Supreme Court was that Yuba Power Products is strictly liable in tort. This decision is based on the fact that even though the defendant was aware that the produced goods were not properly inspected and might contain life- and health-threatening defects, it still placed them on the market. At the same time, the primary reason for concern, in this case, was section 1769 of the Civil Code, according to which a seller is liable for all the damage caused by its products (59 Cal. 2d 57, 377 P.2d 897, 27 Cal. Rptr. 697, 1963). However, this rule works until a buyer “fails to give notice to the seller of the breach of any promise or warranty within a reasonable time after the buyer” reveals the flaws of the purchased good (59 Cal. 2d 57, 377 P.2d 897, 27 Cal. Rptr. 697, 1963, p. 3). An ordinary person typically is not aware of these limits and, therefore, a company could use thi