国际商法英语产品责任法report

要求包括：案情陈述；原告诉讼要点；本案例所涉及的重要法理和法庭裁决Major : __English_______ Class: _Three____ ___ Group: One Name Student ID汪杰20111301318曲溟20111301305马琼英20111301322刘银屏20111301323哈曼琳20111301327Report on Case 4-2IntroductoryBaxter’s (plaintiff), left eye was injured when the windshield of his car shattered. Plaintiff claimed that the trial court improperly excluded evidence in printed materials produced by the Respondent, Ford Motor Company (Respondent), claiming that the windshield was shatterproof.The plaintiff purchased a model A Ford form St. John Motors, a Ford dealer, who had purchased the automobile from the Respondent, Ford Motor Co. Plaintiff claims that representations were made to him by both the dealer and the manufacturer that the windshield of the automobile was made of glass that would not shatter. Respondent’s windshield was struck by a pebble, causing small pieces of glass to fly into his eye, resulting in the loss of his left eye and injuries to the sight of his right eye. The court took the case from the jury and entered judgment in favor of the dealer and the DefendantBasic Theory and Analysis:1. The warranty theory implies that there are some expectations associated with a product, and the manufacturer or seller can be held liable if the productfails to meet those expectations. In this case, the defendant advertised that “all of new Ford cars have a Triplex shatter-proof glass windshield-- so made that it will not fly or shatter under the hardest impact.” but we know that the car in question is not qualified with the requirement. So from this aspect we know that the defendant is liable.2. Express warranties are specific representations made by the manufacturer or seller about the quality of the product or its fitness for an intended purpose. The windshield of the plaintiff’s car was shattered by a pebble, which resulted in his losing an eye. He sued Ford Motor Company and the car dealer who sold him the car on the grounds that the company had advertised that the windshields on the cars were shatterproof. The Washington state court held that Ford’s marketing statements were an express warranty, and thus the company was liable for failure of its product to perform as expected.3. Breach of warranty refers to the failure of a seller to fulfill the terms of a promise, claim, or representation made concerning the quality or type of the product. The law assumes that a seller gives certain warranties concerning goods that are sold and that he or she must stand behind these assertions. The defendant in this case claimed that their cars can ensured the safety of the purchaser but they failed it. So the defendant is liable.4. Under strict liability, the manufacturer, seller, or distributor of a product can be held liable if the product is defective and is unreasonably dangerous to the consumer. As for this case, the defendant knew well that the cars’ windshield were not Triplex shatter-proof glass windshield and it can cause a disaster to the purchasers. Even knowing this the defendant did not reversed their action, so the defendant is liable.5. Misrepresentation in the advertising and sales promotion of a product refersto the process of giving consumers false security about the safety of a particular product, ordinarily by drawing attention away from the hazards of its use. In this case, the plaintiff have a strict liability cause of action, with no need to show negligence or privity, against the defendant that represented its products as possessing “All of the new Ford cars have a Triplex shatter-proof glass windshield, in fact, they do not possess,”and the plaintiff lost his left eye and injured the sight of his right eye as a consequence.6. Under the negligence theory, a manufacturer has a duty to make its product safe for users and is liable for damage or injuries caused by a product that is negligently or carelessly manufactured. Negligence is failure to make a safe product or to take steps to test a product to ensure that it is properly constructed for its intended use. In this case, the defendant knew that the general glass windshield could be danger to the purchasers so they claimed that their products were safe enough for the purchasers because the windshield of their cars “will not fly or shatter under the hardest impact”. Actually, they did not pay much attention to the quality of their windshield. So, the defendant is liable.Conclusion: Representations set forth by a manufacturer whose falsehood cannot be readily detected by a buyer may be relied on by the buyer regardless of an absence of privity of contract.JudgmentAppellant was provided with materials created by Respondent that claimed the windshield was made of shatter-proof glass. Respondent claims there can be no implied or express warranty derived from these materials because there isno privity of contract between Respondent and Appellant. Since Baxter bought the car from a retailer, has were not in privity with Ford and therefore had no standing to bring suit under contract law. However, Baxter noticed that the windshield had an express warranty that it would be "shatterproof." Since it was obviously not shatterproof, Baxter sued under tort law as fraud (by misrepresentation). The Court found that Baxter could recover for product liability claims under tort law. It did not rely upon the contractual obligations, but rather on the fact that the act of delivering an article is wrong due to the lack of the qualities of non-shatter-able windshield which the manufacturer represented the automobile as having. What’s more, when the injured party would be unable to discover the inherent problem with the product, permitting a manufacturer to create demand for its product by representing they possess qualities that they in fact do not, while barring recovery due to a lack of privity is unjust. So when the absence of quality could not be readily detected by the consumer, the article was improper to be published as the non-shatter-able glass was not safe enough to protect consumers against shatters. So the court held that the printed matters were improperly excluded and that Appellant had a right to rely upon these representations even without privity of contract between Appellant and Respondent. At the last, affirmed as to respondent St. John Motor.。