What was the court's ruling in Fambrough v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the case in the text regarding an effort by users of an ATM machine to recover fees charged when using the machine at Wal-Mart stores?

A) Since Wal-Mart posted a warning on the ATM machines that a fee will be charged, Wal-Mart was not liable.
B) Since Wal-Mart posted a warning on the ATM machines that a fee will be charged, Wal-Mart was protected by the Safe Harbor defense.
C) Since Wal-Mart employees could testify that a warning was posted on the ATM machines that a fee will be charged, Wal-Mart was not liable.
D) Since Wal-Mart employees had no personal knowledge of whether a warning that a fee would be charged was posted on the outside of the ATM machines, Wal-Mart was not protected by the Safe Harbor defense.
E) Although Wal-Mart employees had no personal knowledge of whether a warning that a fee would be charged was posted on the outside of the ATM machines, Wal-Mart was still protected by the Safe Harbor defense.

Question

Jessica Kitchens · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : D, Explanation :  The court ruled that Wal-Mart was not protected by the Safe Harbor defense because its employees had no personal knowledge of whether a warning about the fee was posted on the ATM machines.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions