Consumer Protection Which Do You Believe Presents

Consumer Protection Which do you believe presents the greatest threat to civil society: a corporation that commits crimes (e.g., murder, environmental crimes, or bribery, etc.), or persons who commit crimes that harm businesses (e.g., embezzlement, fraud, or larceny, etc.)? Defend your response, using at least one example from current events. The greatest threat to civil society is corporations that commit crimes. This is due in part the overall prevalence of the business community within a capitalistic society.

Many developed nations depend on business to improve overall societal growth and development. Through business, the overall quality of life for society improves. Simply looking over the last 100 years of America, a minimum wage employee now has a better quality of life than John D. Rockefeller did over a century ago. This is due primarily to business within the context of a capitalistic society. As such, due to their prevalence, crimes by business can severely harm society if left unchecked.

The financial crisis of 2008 is a prime example of corporate greed, harming society. Because business is so integral to the growth and prosperity of society, a large crime within business can have implications for society and the world. In 2008, not only did American society suffer, so too did the entire world economy. This was due primarily to the interconnectedness of business relative to other aspects of society. As indicated in the above example, business can therefore be very detrimental to society, if its operations are both illegal and unethical.

If U.S. companies should not be liable, then they could be legally exempt from tort liability. Discuss the consequences of such a policy to U.S. consumers. In regards to the U.S. consumer, if companies are not liable, their many be incentive to cut corners and reduce the overall quality of the product. Ordinarily, routine transactions regarding retail items that are simple may not cause harm to consumers. Aspects such as suits, or t-shirts could even be produced cheaper as foreign entities have less regulation costs.

However, when the retail item is vital to proper functioning of a particular task, an exemption could become potentially detrimental. For instance, if construction workers need "steel-toe" boots, or if a waitress needs "Non-slip" shoes, the quality of the product is vital to perform business transactions. As such, if U.S. companies are exempt from liability, their may be an incentive to reduce costs and subsequently the quality of the product. The consumer suffers as the function of the particular item is substandard.

This could potentially cause injury and bodily harm to the unsuspecting consumer. If the U.S. companies should be liable, then those companies would not be legally exempt from tort liability. Discuss the consequences of such a policy to U.S. businesses. The consequences of this policy could potentially raise prices of products to compensate for potential lawsuits and compliance costs. Generally speaking, companies that are liable often engage in extensive product research to prevent unfortunate accidents.

This research is often very costly as companies may need to create multiple iterations of the same products to comply with U.S. standards. These cost, unfortunately are transferred to the consumer in many instances, in the form of higher costs. Research and development, product testing, and product redesign are all naturally consequences for liable U.S. companies. This cost, particularly for inefficient operations, can dramatically increase the cost of producing an item.

In addition to compliance and production costs, companies will also need to ascertain the extent to which they may become targets of lawsuits. Lawsuits, particularly in America, often favor the plaintiff. There a very few repercussions for plaintiffs who sue simply for frivolous reasons. In other countries, the winner would pay the losers court costs. This substantially reduces the amount of frivolous lawsuits that are meant simply to "steal" money from corporations. America has no such system in place.

As such, companies must now account for frivolous lawsuits attempting to extract money from the company through court costs, negative publicity, and wasted time. These aspects, much like those mentioned above, can be very costly. Companies therefore, must account for these costs in the overall pricing of their products. Unfortunately, these cost increases are often transferred to consumers in the form of higher product prices. Assume that U.S. retailers do have legal liability for defective products. What steps could U.S.

retailers and manufacturers take, when using products imported from China that would minimize their liability exposure? To begin, U.S. retailers must have closer relationships with both vendors and suppliers within their supply chain. Vender and supplier relationships are integral to the overall quality and functional expectations of a product. Particularly for items imported from China, strict standards must be in place to effectively screen incoming products. For instance, retailers could test product regarding prespecific standards.

If these standards are not met the item will be rejected, subject to a pending revision. If a supplier has multiple products that fail to meet these standards, the supplier is then eliminated from the chain altogether. Ample communication with consumers will also be needed on the part of retailers. Clear, concise, and comprehensive information regarding potential threats of the product are essential. Warning labels, information on handling the product, and information on the correct use of the product all help reduce the potential liability of a corporation (Alan, 1990).

An item that has been recently recalled by the CPSC is that of Trident Diving Equipment. In this instance, the item has the propensity to cause drowning in those who use it. Trident has received one report of the hose leaking. No injuries have been reported due to the use of this product however. If the product has not been recalled, the manufacturer would have been liable for the drowning death of those who use the product.

According to tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. In many instances, consumers must be able to prove an act of negligence. In the instance of the Scuba diving air hose, the manufacturer should have done considerable research in order to maintain the air within the hose. When diving into water, consumers have a reasonable expectation to assume that the hose.