Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
(O'Reilly, 2003, p.2) But the company is not legally liable if it did all necessary testing, warning, and reasonable evaluation of safety, if for example, an unexpected result occurs through the use of the product.
O'Reilly finds the reasonable person standard troubling, as the reasonable 'average' consumer will not have specialized knowledge that a manufacturer should have about the product he or she is selling. He believes government agencies have too much responsibility to monitor product safety (O'Reilly, 2003, p.3) Also, there is little incentive for CEOs to acknowledge harm and incurr potential lawsuits.
Not only is there negative publicity for consumers, but for corporate investors as well, because of the financial losses that ensue after a recall. For example, the article cites a medical diagnostics company, which failed to satisfy FDA inspectors regarding the quality controls of its factory, recalled thirty products. The company's annual corporate report listed recall costs of $181,000 and overall costs,...
However, it is also noteworthy that product violations may cost the company even more revenue if recalls take place, and voluntary recalls can garner good publicity for the consumers, if not for investors. No business would wish the additional responsibility advocaed by the lawyer in the article, but the issue raised is an important one for businesses. It reminds companies must be vigilant about product safety above and beyond the minimun legal standard of compliance lest the law step in and regulate the issue further.
Not only is there negative publicity for consumers, but for corporate investors as well, because of the financial losses that ensue after a recall. For example, the article cites a medical diagnostics company, which failed to satisfy FDA inspectors regarding the quality controls of its factory, recalled thirty products. The company's annual corporate report listed recall costs of $181,000 and overall costs, including inventory write-off and impairment of assets, that totaled $12,752,000..(O'Reilly, 2003, p.1)
Managerial Perspective
Obviously, greater liability for failures to recall products should strike fear into the heart of management -- increasing legal costs, and even technical costs, as companies would be responsible for employing staff to conduct routine tests to discover if a product was in need of a recall on a regular basis because of a hidden design flaw, lest the company become liable. However, it is also noteworthy that product violations may cost the company even more revenue if recalls take place, and voluntary recalls can garner good publicity for the consumers, if not for investors. No business would wish the additional responsibility advocaed by the lawyer in the article, but the issue raised is an important one for businesses. It reminds companies must be vigilant about product safety above and beyond the minimun legal standard of compliance lest the law step in and regulate the issue further.
Products Liability Research: Mattel Inc. is a company that was founded in 1944 by Elliot and Ruth Handler that designs, manufactures, and markets a huge range of toy products. The firm is headquartered in California with its core product lines including Hot Wheels die-cast vehicles, Barbie fashion dolls, Disney toys, Fisher-Price preschool toys, and games like Scrabble. While Mattel also manufactures its toy products based on license agreements with movie makers,
Product Liability: Warranties and Torts Facts: Maria Gonzalez rented an apartment from Maria Garcia. Garcia installed a Morflo water heater, which was kept in an area inaccessible by tenants. The water heater and its manual contained extensive warnings indicating that burns could occur if the water was above 120 degrees. Gonzalez's 15-month-old child Angel was scalded while being bathed by his 15-year-old brother, in a manner contra-indicated by the warnings
Contract Law Under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) section 3-405 (Employer's Responsibility for Fraudulent Endorsement by Employee) corporate accounts are exposed to a multitude of fraudulent and forgery risks and therefore it has been mandated that the corporate employer as well as the bank are responsible for keeping a check on their account activities. In the above case, Stewart's client may have issued the check on behalf of the corporate employer
The things most frequently linked with product liability are negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and various consumer protection claims. A warranty is breached when the guarantee is broken or when goods are not as anticipated, at the time the sale takes place, whether or not the defect is obvious. The seller is responsible to make things right by giving a refund or replacement. It is possible for a seller
Product Warranty Products for home improvement are the most common commodities in the market from which consumers demand much warranty from the manufacturers because of the basic fact that they are expected to exist and last long within the presence of homes. Such products include both electrical and non-electric appliances, home furniture, as well as services and materials provided for home improvements. In general, product warranty, even in any type
Law of Contract Contract law As to concerned definition of law there are many definition among various schools of thought of law such that no particular definition is acceptable to them as universal definition of law, but nevertheless there is a common acceptable definition as to what the law is composed of and that it is a collection of rules and regulations governing human conduct prescribed by human beings for the obedience