Week 7 Final Paper bla303

docx

School

Wilmington University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

BLA-303

Subject

Business

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by UltraGazelle3953

Week 7 Final Paper Wilmington University Bla 303 Introduction

Damages sustained by consumers because of a company's wares are subject to financial compensation under "product liability" laws. In her extensive list of possible theories and grounds for proving strict liability in tort, promise breach and negligence instances, Adams provides a wealth of information (Adams para. 1, 1989). In two cases, Greenman v. Yuba Power Goods Inc. and Kosters v. Seven-Up Co., plaintiffs said that they had suffered injuries because of corporations' defective goods. The manufacturers' negligence led to the defective goods, as was later shown. Strict responsibility was established in the landmark case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products Inc., ruled by the California Supreme Court. Governments now base most product liability claims on this methodology. Product liability litigants encounter fewer roadblocks when they stick to the premise of seeking accountability, according to Cheeseman's 2019 essay on page 116. There are two schools of thought that address these concerns: ethical fundamentalism and Kantian ethics. There can be no room for unethical behavior in any relationship between a business and its constituents, especially customers. intended must be a lot more effort to make sure everyone behaves ethically, according to Cheeseman (2019, p. 720), even if rules are intended to aid both people and businesses. In the case that a company's products cause harm to consumers, the sale of these items might lead to product liability lawsuits. The article examines two court cases that show how companies dealt with product responsibility and the significance of law and ethics: Kosters v. Seven-Up Co. and Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. both reached verdicts. The article will also discuss the ethics of corporate product responsibility, as well as frameworks and ideas like Kantian ethics and ethical fundamentalism. Legal Analysis

According to the plaintiff in the case of William B. Greenman vs. Yuba Power Products , Billy B. Greenman received a Shopsmith, which is a combined energy application, as a present for the holidays in the year 1955. The plaintiff claims that this occurred in December. When it comes to drilling, working on lathes, and cutting wood, the use of this gadget is essential. William B. Greenman employed the tools to manufacture a pedestal out of a huge piece of wood in the year 1957, which was around two years after the first payment that was made to the professional blacksmith. It was not at all difficult for him to deal with this piece of wood. That was his expertise. The object that was smashed into his forehead was a piece of wood that had been chosen at random. After twelve and a half months had passed since the purchase, Bill Greenman claims that his allegations of negligence and violation of guarantee were officially conveyed to the seller as well as production. William B. Greenman may likely produce a mountain of evidence in court that proves a relationship between his injuries and the substandard design and production of the Shopsmith combination power tool. This is plausible. Since it was alleged that William B. Greenman was the one responsible to produce the item, the business was found to be liable for damages amounting to a total of $65,000. Intending to have the decision reversed, Williams B. Greenman and the manufacturer both filed an appeal against that specific aspect of the verdict. It is possible to conclude that William B. Greenman did not have the legal right to bring a claim for breach of contract following section 1769 of the civil code. This is on the assumption that the producer is to be trusted. Insufficient notice of the violation was provided by him, which is the reason for this result. Sharon P. Kosters vs. Seven-Up Company, the action is being brought by Seven-Up Company against Sharon P. Kosters. The Seven-Up brand has given the Brooks Bottling Company

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

permission to utilize specific Seven-Up bottle, case, and crown designs for their brand. This authorization was granted by the Seven-Up brand. The two businesses have entered into a franchise agreement, which includes this authority as a component. As an additional point of interest, "the Seven-Up Company must approve any advertising material used by the bottler" (Kosters v. Seven-Up Co., 595 F. 2d 34, 1979) necessitates that the Seven-Up Company provide its consent. Through the aid of her legal counsel, Sharon Kosters was able to successfully get a compensation of thirty thousand dollars. The grocery store, the carton maker, and the bottler were all listed on the list of parties involved in the incident. However, Seven-up did not agree with this remark and expressed their disagreement. They said that the company had permitted the packaging for purely aesthetic grounds, as they wanted to ensure that the brand was good enough for the product. As a follow-up to her first action, Sharon Kosters initiated legal proceedings against several third parties, which included the bottler, the producer of the cartons, and the shop operator. The first thing that she did was approach Seven-Up with the request to get a portion of the pay. As far as the corporation Seven-Up is concerned, the five interconnected theories of product liability that were developed by the district court are all flawed in some way. A stringent duty is the foundation for three of these theories, a contract is the foundation for one, and negligence is the foundation for the fifth theory. Even though there is no "defective" container, jurors can hold Seven-Up liable for anything because of the directions that state "inherently dangerous activity" and "opportunity to change the design." Ethical Analysis Ethical Fundamentalism, The Extremist Approach to Ethical Philosophy If you want to boost your self-assurance, putting your trust in God is a fantastic approach to do it. Cheeseman (2019,

page 722) is of the view that when people are unsure about what is right or wrong, they often seek assistance from well-established organizations or groups so that they may make an educated decision. This is because they want to guarantee that they are making the proper choice. In the case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., a significant amount of precedent was used. A petition was submitted to the California Civil Code about this matter. In line with Section 1769 of the Civil Code, "Acceptance of the goods by the buyer shall not discharge the seller from liability in damages or other legal remedy for breach of any promise or warranty in the contract to sell or the sale," the buyer is not released from the seller's responsibility to pay damages or seek other legal remedies. If it is discovered that this paragraph conflicts with any of the terms of any previous agreement, then this paragraph will be given priority over the other provisions. According to the decision that was given down in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (59 Cal. 2d. 57 1963), consumers are not held responsible for the actions of sellers if they fail to inform them of a breached promise or guarantee within a reasonable amount of time after becoming aware of it. This verdict was handed down in 1963. Following the ethical fundamentalist requirements established in section 1769 of the Civil Code, the act of bringing a claim for guaranteed violation is completely always prohibited. This is the case regardless of the circumstances. Regarding the many ethical issues that Kant explored throughout his collection of works. As stated by Cheeseman (2019), the universal application of principles is one of the most significant parts of Kant's ethical theory. Kantian ethics is based on the idea that people should be truthful and have the potential to change the circumstances in which they find themselves. This idea lies at the heart of Kantian ethics. The courts that heard both instances moved on with the process by applying the same standards to the question of whether the situation was legal.

Since it may be considered an exception, it will be given priority over all the other requests that have been made. Two examples of lawsuits that have been brought against firms like this one for causing injury to consumers via the usage of their products are Greenman v. Yuba Power Items, Inc. and Kosters v. Seven-Up Co. Kosters v. Seven-Up Co. Greenman and Yuba Power Products, Inc. were involved in a legal issue, and Williams B. Greenman was a party to the case that was eventually contested. The injury he got occurred when he was using a combination power tool that had been given to him as a Christmas gift but was not operating properly despite his best efforts. Sharon Kosters, who had been injured, was the one who first brought the lawsuit against Seven-Up Company, which is now formally known as Kosters v. Seven-Up Co. Sharon Kosters was the one who launched the proceedings. Law vs. Ethics Certain regulations have not been written down. The bulk of laws, according to Cheeseman's assertion in his book (vol. 720), are still formed from moral notions, even though this happens. Despite this, there are still problems that arise concerning product liability that are experienced by both customers and businesses. If an individual gets damaged because of utilizing the product due to its faults, the person who manufactures, advertises, or distributes a defective product may be exposed to legal ramifications. If their goods prove to be responsible for injuries or deaths, manufacturers may be held accountable for damages under a variety of tort systems. There is a current idea of severe responsibility that covers issues such as dishonesty and carelessness. This school of thought is one of the schools of thought that is in accord with this school of thought. Even though there was no guarantee provided, the action that William B. Greenman brought against Yuba Power Products Inc. was successful, and the firm was held to be largely liable for

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

the losses. Consumers can legally enforce the promises that producers make to them, regardless of whether the commitments are verbal or written. Manufacturers may face legal ramifications if consumers can do so, even if it is an unpleasant experience for them. In the case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Goods, Inc. (59 Cal. 2d. 57 1963), it was said that one of the primary objectives of strict accountability is to ensure that businesses, and not vulnerable individuals, are held financially accountable for the harm that is caused by their products. A harsh accountability system serves this aim, which is one of its core functions. Even though the corporation did not provide the materials, Cheeseman (2019, page 116) says that all parties involved in the purchase or maintenance of the product are obligated to take "strict responsibility" for the product. The argument that Seven-Up offered in the case of Kosters v. Seven-Up Co., which demonstrates that any new grounds for severe tort obligation would still be accessible, lends support to this assertion. Seven-up and its suppliers did not participate in the construction of this container, and neither company was expected to make sure that the franchisee used it. Neither company was responsible for manufacturing the container. Conclusion Finally, clients who have been hurt because of the use of a product are sometimes the target of product liability lawsuits. Product liability was a contentious issue in both Seven-Up Company and Greenman v. Yuba Power Products Inc., however the degree of disagreement changed to varying degrees in each case. The plaintiffs took the choice to bring a case against both companies after both were responsible for the injuries that they experienced while utilizing the products that were created by the defendants. In this circumstance, the ethical principles that are based on a Kantian or fundamentalist framework might prove to be quite beneficial.

Reference

Cheeseman, H. R. (2019). Business law: Henry R. Cheeseman, Professor Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California . Pearson. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., [L. A. No. 26976. In Bank. Jan. 24, 1963.] WILLIAM B. GREENMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. YUBA POWER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant and Appellant; THE HAYSEED, Defendant and Respondent. Kosters v. Seven-Up Co., 595 F. 2d 347 - Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 1979 Kosters v. Seven- Up Co. , 595 F.2d 347 (6th Cir. 1979)

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Week 7 Final Paper bla303

Related Documents