The Product Liability Act provides a four step system which is also very well articulated in the other laws in respect to warranty claims. Firstly, it states that the claimant has got a right to ask for repair, maintenance or replacement of a product. However, in the event that neither repair nor replacement can take place then the claimant is entitled to a price reduction or termination of the contract with a retrospective effect (GLG 2). Up to this point it would be worth while to raise the following queries: who should be blamed in case a product is faulty or defective?
Is it the manufacturer, the distributor, importer, retailer or all of them? The Product Liability Act is very clear on this since it holds that the producer or manufacturer for that matter is liable for any cases of low quality products (GLG 2). This study concurs with this position from a philosophical point of view and as per the principle of causality. It can be argued and justifiably so that the manufacture serves as the principal cause of the product, for instance, assembling, legal documentation and choice of materials just to mention a few.
As can be seen, the other middlemen just take part in an already finished good (GLG 3). The Act also states that the aggrieved party has the sole responsibility to prove damages and defects. Additionally, the aggrieved party should prove any breach of contract (GLG 4). This study cannot fail to mention negligence which happens to present the most important problems in the tort field. This is particularly the case since the problems in negligence not infrequently revolve significantly around establishing some duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff (Street 3).
Here the liability for negligence is created due to the intentional tort of willful omission (Street 5). There is that category of torts which are unintentional and which are also not the result of any lack of reasonable care. They are those whose liability is imposed because certain types of accidents happen irrespective of whether anyone was of fault (Raz 9). The policy of the law in these cases is that the injured plaintiff must be given redress even though there is nothing legally or morally wrong in what the defendant was doing or how he did it (Raz 12).
Torts with more than one basis of liability can and in deed are often predicted on the previously considered basis of liability, namely negligence and strict liability. It is very important to ascertain which bases of liability is relied on since such determination will also govern the defense which may be asserted as well as the scope of liability (Raz 17). The manufacturer of a defective product, for example, or the retailer who sold it, may be held liable to the person injured by the product on a number of theories-some in contract and some in tort.
And the tort liability may be based on intentional acts, negligence, or conduct justifying the imposition of strict liability (Raz 21). At early Common Law, a manufacturer or supplier of a chattel could be held liable for injuries sustained through its use only by those with whom he was in privity of contract. And as to persons with whom there was no privity, there was no liability either in tort or contract (Raz 24).