This paper examines two distinct but related areas of law through case study analysis. The first section addresses breach of warranty in product liability, using the case of Arvo Lake to explore how express and implied warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code create manufacturer responsibility for foreseeable consequential damages. The second section analyzes environmental liability and due process through the Reardon v. United States case, in which the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the EPA's authority to impose property liens under CERCLA without prior judicial or administrative hearings. The paper considers the constitutional implications of these rulings and argues for legislative reform to establish procedural safeguards in environmental lien cases.
A warranty is a component of a contract for the sale of certain goods (Farlex Inc., 2014). It is either an express or implied assurance that the purchased good or item will perform at a certain level of efficiency. A warranty is express when the seller or manufacturer affirms specific facts about the item being purchased. An implied warranty is fixed and enforced by law — that is, by product liability law. This law guarantees or protects product quality, suitability for use, and merchantability. The Uniform Commercial Code covers these and other warranties (Farlex, Inc., 2014). A case of product liability can occur when the buyer suffers harm from the use of the product as a consequence of reliance or trust in the product and its warranties (Rot Law, 2011). The injured person can then make a breach of warranty claim based on either an express or implied warranty (Rot Law, 2011).
The manufacturer of the air conditioner purchased by Arvo Lake breached the warranty for consequential damages (Willinton, 2013). The damage in Lake's case was foreseeable. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that every item produced and sold is in optimum condition, as the manufacturer expressly and implicitly guarantees. Every unit of a product line should pass rigorous standards of quality and performance and be carefully inspected for all foreseeable defects — such as a hole in the refrigeration system found in Lake's air conditioner.
The manufacturer or seller is responsible for the natural consequences of the breach of warranty (Willinton, 2013). The manufacturer or seller knows, or should know, everything about their product. When they expressly or implicitly warrant that it will function or perform at a certain level of quality or efficiency, they hold themselves responsible for the full range of liabilities when it fails. They should, or are expected to, foresee all negative consequences arising from any failure in its use (Willinton, 2013). In the case of Lake — a retired 71-year-old man — a natural consequence of a hole in the purchased air conditioning unit would be cessation of cooling, high ambient temperature, hyperthermia, circulatory failure, and death.
Limitations on product liability for natural consequences include the delay or inability to deliver a product because of fire, strike, accidents, riots, or mass actions (Synquest, 2010). There is no liability for loss or damage due to special or unavoidable causes beyond one's reasonable control (Synquest, 2010).
The U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, ruled on October 29, 1991, that placing a lien on the Reardons' property without a prior court or administrative hearing was not unconstitutional (Justia, 1991). It found that the lien imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) did not constitute a deprivation of property or a violation of procedural due process. The court decided that the lack of pre-enforcement review under CERCLA was not a valid challenge to the lien imposed. The lien was intended to secure funds for cleanup costs at a toxic waste site.
The Reardons could not invoke a defense under CERCLA because CERCLA prohibits judicial review of EPA actions. Neither does the Administrative Procedure Act have jurisdiction in situations where CERCLA bars judicial review. CERCLA restricts review of the lien until the EPA enforces an action. The court found that there were no procedural due process safeguards for the landowners before or after the lien was placed. It also held that the lien did not deprive the Reardons of their constitutionally protected property interest. The court interpreted the lien not as a confiscation of property but as a restriction on its alienation. The lien did not constrain the owners' use or possession of the property; rather, it secured the government's interest in the funds it spent cleaning the site. At the same time, the lien ensured that those responsible would repay the public for cleanup costs (Justia, 1991).
"Analyzes Reardon landowners' failed due process claim"
"Argues for congressional reform of environmental lien law"
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.