Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Product Liability Development. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 3 page paper considers a case supplied by the student, where sunglasses break and a shard of glass blinds the wearer. The position of action taken under product liability laws is examined with the position in 2003 compared to that of the 1950’s and the 1970’s. The bibliography cites 1 source.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TEprolib.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
lifetime guarantee against breakage, are broken by a baseball, a shard entering the eye and blinding the buyers 16 year old son. Under todays legal position there would be
cause for action, there is a written guarantee, as such the first claim would be for a new pair of glasses. However, the father had also relied on the box
which claimed to give instant eye protection. The claim here would be under the relevant product liability laws, these are the laws which ensure that goods sold live up to
the promises that they give. For example, under Illinois the responsibility of the manufacturer is defined as "the responsibility of manufacturers, distributors and sellers of products to the public,
to deliver products free of defects which harm an individual or numerous persons and to make good on that responsibility if their products are defective" (Lexis, 2003). There are similar
approaches in most states. This may be seen as a fairly simple case to bring. The case is brought, usually, against the retailer who sold the product, and it
is the retailer that then takes action against the manufacturer. Under these laws the usual approach is for the injured party only needing to prove that the product itself failed.
The product sold here was for both spectator and active sports and specifically states their use ion baseball. There is an indication that the lenses are special lenses although
this is not specified. However, it appears that the lenses are not special, but ordinary lenses and as such the product itself may not have been suitable for the
uses in which it was advertised. As the glasses were not meant to break then it can be argued that the case is clear-cut, but there are also many defences
...