Householder hired Contractor to remodel Householder's kitchen. She had learned of Contractor through a classified advertisement he placed in the local newspaper. During the telephone conversation in which she hired him, Contractor stated that he was experienced and qualified to do all necessary work. Because of Contractor's low charge for his work, he and Householder agreed in writing that on acceptance of his job by Householder, Contractor would have no further liability to her or to anyone else for any defects in materials or workmanship, and that she would bear all such costs. Householder purchased a dishwasher manufactured by Elex Company from Dealer, who was in the retail electrical appliance business. The dishwasher was sold by Dealer with only the manufacturer's warranty and with no warranty by Dealer; Elex Company restricted its warranty to ninety days on parts and labor. Contractor installed the dishwasher Two months after Householder accepted the entire job, she was conversing in her home with Accountant, an acquaintance who had agreed to prepare her income tax return gratuitously. As they talked, they noticed that the dishwasher was operating strangely, repeatedly stopping and starting. At Householder's request, Accountant gave it a cursory examination and, while inspecting it, received a violent electrical shock which did him extensive harm. The dishwasher had an internal wiring defect which allowed electrical current to be carried into the framework and caused the machine to malfunction. The machine had not been adequately grounded by Contractor during installation; if it had been, the current would have been led harmlessly away. The machine carried instructions for correct grounding, which Contractor had not followed. If Accountant asserts a claim based on strict liability against Elex Company for damages, the probable result is that Accountant will
recover, because the dishwasher was defectively made.  recover, because Elex Company is vicariously liable for the improper installation.  not recover, because he assumed the risk by inspecting the machine.  not recover, because he was not the purchaser