[GA - Draft] Quality in Consumer Goods

[mcmasterdonia]

Quality in Consumer Goods
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection
Proposed by: Sciongrad | Onsite Topic​

The General Assembly,

Believing it is the right of consumers to purchase products with the reasonable expectation that such a product will not injure them when used appropriately,

to this end resolves that:

1. Manufacturers that produce any product with defects which are unreasonably hazardous to the user or their property are strictly liable for harm caused to the user or their property by the product if:

1. the manufacturer is in the business of selling or providing such products,
2. the product reaches the user without substantial changes in the condition in which it was purchased;

2. Manufacturers that sell products which fall under the rule established in section 1 shall remain liable, even if the seller has taken all possible precautions in the manufacture and sale of their product or the user of the product did not purchase it from the manufacturer or enter into any contractual relation with it;

3. A Court of International Claims (CIC), which shall consist of a Trial Division and an Appellate Division, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all torts that may occur involving hazardous products in international commerce pursuant to section 1;

4. Any person (natural or legal) who suffers harm or loss due to some hazardous product in international commerce has the right to sue the person (natural or legal) responsible for said product in the CIC Trial Division;

5. Each case in the CIC Trial Division shall be heard by one trial judge, and shall be decided based on the preponderance of the evidence and according to the following test:

1. If, on account of some defect or design flaw, a reasonable consumer would find the product to be hazardous when used in a reasonable manner, which for the purpose of this resolution shall mean for its intended purpose or for a purpose which a reasonable consumer would believe the product to have based on its capabilities or representations in advertisements, then the manufacturer shall be held liable and made to pay compensatory damages; depending on the severity of the defect and the potential egregiousness of the oversight, the CIC trial judge may award punitive damage;

6. The plaintiff and the defendant shall each have the right, within 90 days, to make an appeal to the CIC Appellate Division. Each appeal shall be heard by three appellate judges; and they shall have the power, by majority vote, to vacate the judgment and order a retrial in the CIC Trial Division if they find that the trial judge engaged in judicial misconduct or made a decision that is clearly erroneous;

7. Member nations are forbidden from immunizing, legally or in practice, their domestic manufacturers from the either the jurisdiction of the CIC or liability generally under the terms of this resolution;

8. Members nations are encouraged independently adopt domestic quality standards to diminish the likelihood of public consumption of hazardous products;

9. The ability to establish and enforce domestic tort and consumer protection law in disputes between domestic parties is reserved to member nations, under the terms of this resolution; and

10. Nothing in the terms of this resolution shall preclude the World Assembly from expanding the mandate of the CIC, within the bounds of extant World Assembly law.

Co-authored by: Christian Democrats

 

[mcmasterdonia]

IFV

 

[mcmasterdonia]

This one is up for last call for edits on the NS forums and will likely be introduced soon. Given that Sciongrad is a key member of IDU and a member of WALL, I invite TNPers to offer their comments on this resolution.

 

[Praetor]

Against.

 

[Fregerson]

Eh I have issues with the proposal in terms of its phrasing. Tried writing something similar before and know the difficulties of writing something along the lines of this issue. This may be slightly better than my poor draft previously but I still think there is something wrong with the phrasing of certain clauses, such as 1.1 (are there companies that manufacture things of a kind but not in the business of selling such products? Contractors? If so, the company who contracted them to do so seems to be exempt from this resolution based on its current phrasing.)
The flip flop between the use of "sellers" and "manufacturers" also confuses me, not sure if they refer to the same thing but it is quite confusing especially in the read of some clauses like clause 2.

Judgement reserved for now.