Re: [LINK] "New Laws: Thou Shalt Patch"

From: MToohey@fesa.wa.gov.au
Date: Wed Aug 01 2001 - 14:55:36 EST


I couldn't agree more.

On re-reading my earlier email it could be construed that I was defending
the indefensible - which wasn't my intention, rather I was intending to
point out an ambiguity of the law which could provide a possible defense.

A further example of how the law can work is cigarette manufacturers -
i.e. If you use the product as it is intended - it will kill you.

                                                                                                                                             
                    Frank O'Connor
                    <foconno1@bigpo To: MToohey@fesa.wa.gov.au
                    nd.net.au> cc: Rick Welykochy <rick@praxis.com.au>, link@www.anu.edu.au
                                           Subject: Re: [LINK] "New Laws: Thou Shalt Patch"
                    01/08/2001
                    12:46 PM
                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                             

Ahhh ... but what is the situation when, from Day 1, Ford requires
the owner to bring the car in for servicing daily or weekly and
install new parts to replace defective parts?

What is the situation when Ford doesn't advise the owner personally
(so he is not aware of the defect) and simply places hundreds of
bulletins on a set of Ford notice boards that are difficult to find?

What is the situation when installing each repair means downtime for
the truck or car that the owner is using in their business?

What is the situation when the underlying design of Ford's cars is
fundamentally flawed in the interests of 'user features' to the
extent that the car represents a serious threat to the life and
security of the owner as a result?

What is the situation when ...

You get the idea. :)

                               Regards,

At 12:09 PM +0800 1/8/01, MToohey@fesa.wa.gov.au wrote:
>Rick,
>
>in relation to your car analogy
>
>" Let me see now ...
>
>1. Ford Motor Co. produces a car with a defect. The defect turns out
> be a possible source of injury. The result: Ford is *legally liable*
> to recall and fix said vehicles. "
>
>But if a customer does not service or maintain the vehicle as the manual
>requires, and a loss or damage occurs due to a failing of the product,
then
>the supplier has a means of escaping liability.
>
>cheers,
>Matt.

--
************************
Apathy is a great cause for concern
... but who cares?
************************



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 03:10:02 EST