Consumer Product Safety Act
The Consumer Product Safety Act states that any company that receives numerous complaints about a products defects must report these claims to the CPSA. According to the CPSA reporting responsibilities belong to manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers of consumer products. Each is required to notify the Commission if it obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that a product fails to comply with a consumer product safety standard or banning regulation. Also if the product contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury, or death to the consumer.
The Commission's interpretative regulation explains the company's obligations and those of the Commission.. This requires manufacturers of a consumer product to report to the Commission if a particular model of a consumer product is the subject of three civil actions that have been filed in Federal or State court, each suit alleges the involvement of that model in death or serious injury to the body. Then at least three of the actions will result in a final settlement involving the manufacturer; or in a judgment for the plaintiff within any one of the two year periods specified. The first two year period began to run on January 1, 1991 and ends on December 31, 1992. The second two year period starts on January 1, 1993; the third, on January 1, 1995; and so forth. Manufacturers must file a report within 30 days after the settlement or judgment in the third civil action to which the reporting requirement applies.
Why is the reporting required? The intent of Congress was to encourage widespread reporting of potential product hazards. Congress sought not only to have the Commission uncover substantial product hazards, but also to identify risks of injury which the Commission could attempt to prevent through its own efforts, such as information and education programs, safety labeling, and adoption of product safety standards. Although CPSC relies on sources other than company reports to identify substantial product hazards, reporting by companies is invaluable because firms often learn of product safety problems long before the Commission does. For this reason, any company involved in the manufacture, importation, distribution or sale of consumer products should develop a system of reviewing and maintaining consumer complaints, inquiries, product liability suits and comments on the products they handle.
If a firm reports to the Commission it does not necessarily mean there is a substantial product hazard.
Have you ever shot a firearm before? If you have… don't you hate it when you hear that click-click noise when the firearm is empty! Now with the New York state safe act of the seven round clips law you will hear the noise a lot sooner than before. The seven round clips should be unconstitutional that New York State is putting into law. I don't think we should be regulated on the number of rounds we can put in a clip.
This essay will examine key aspects of the recent implementation of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) 2011, which is the largest overhaul in Consumer Law in Australia in the past twenty five years. The ACL replaces 20 existing State and Territory laws into one national law , the legislation was enacted in two main parts as Schedule 2 of the renamed Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA) - Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) . Aforementioned this essay it will outline the key benefits of the implementation of the act. Furthermore it will critique the Act, whilst exploring the objectives of the legislation.
The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) was established to protect consumers in any legal trading activities in Australia. A set of guarantees has also been introduced for those consumers who are acquiring goods and services from Australian suppliers, importers or manufacturers. The guarantees are intended to ensure that consumers will receive the goods or services they have paid for. If they have problems with the products and services they bought, they are entitled for remedies, such as repair, replacement, and refund.
The act of manufactures labeling of our foods products in terms of the ingredients a particular product contains and the nutritious facts is sometimes taken for granted, we often see the labels on our food products, but ignore them because we’re so used to seeing them in our daily lives. Surprisingly, food product labeling, specifically that pertaining to allergen warnings, were not always available to consumers until a government mandate in 2004 (FALCPA). I think part of the reason for such a lateness in regulation was due to a social stigma regarding allergies, that having them was some sort of natural selection and not an issue that should be taken care of. Another surprising notion I came across was that although there was no government regulation, manufactures of food products took a good amount of initiative in letting their consumers know of potential allergens in their products.
Another agency would be the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA provides strict standards and regulations just like the EPA to protect the consumers and business. For consumers it protects them from potential health hazards and protects companies from becoming liable or doors to be closed by setting regulations to follow. The FDA requires smokers to have knowledge of the warning and impacts of smoking and the risk. One regulation is that the FDA requires that the labels for smokers. The same regulation stands for pharmaceuticals.
Our products adhere to every environmental and product safety regulation around the world, and we
There are six elements, or requirements, for a cause of action in strict product liability and these elements are the following: the product must have been in defective condition when sold, the part selling the item must normally be engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing the product, the product must be unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer due to the defective condition, the user or consumer must have incurred physical harm to self or property by the use or consumption of the product, the defective condition must be the proximate cause of the injury or damage, and the goods must not have been substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury or damage was
Enforcement of product safety would be expensive, though it could prove to be more necessary than on...
In this case, the organization needs to decide if there is a possibility that their products contain hazardous material. They need to analyze alternatives and make rational decisions, avoiding any situations that could be a concern for decision makers, such as anchoring. This refers to when individuals focus on a single piece of information and ignore other evidence when making decisions (Bauer & Erdogan, p.270, 2010). Focusing on one piece of information could prove detrimental to a company. Blatantly denying a possible health concern simply because of the longevity of the product is not the best choice for the company. Once a decision has been made on how to address the problem, the company can effectively evaluate the outcome.
b. Should the Agency has taken any actions in previous years (such as restricted distribution, withdrawal of product, or Dear Doctor letter) that they did not? Why or why not?
According to this theory, self-regulation is seen as optimal and only should be replaced or supplemented by additional layers of formal controls when there is evidence of firm failures. The response regulation approach taken by the commission is that they feel that the corporation self-regulation would be accomplished through ethical programs. The ideal result that the commission is looking for a corporation to encourage ethical and discourage unethical behavior.
In Australia, food safety is also an important issue. Incidents involving a range of products create adverse publicity and result in negative images of the food sector. Consumers are also exposed to stories in the media cataloguing food safety incidents
Reporting is, however, not an end in itself. The public will see through cynical reporting and attempts to be politically correct for its own sake. Companies need to demonstrate their commitment is real and produces real results.
“The Commission, in an emergency, may by order summarily take such action to alter, supplement, suspend, or impose requirements or restrictions with respect to any matter or action subject to regulation by the Commission or a self-regulatory organization under this title, as the Commission determines is necessary in the public interest and for the protection of investors.” (University of Cincinnati College of Law, 2008)
The product quality control inspection protects you against significant risks not to be neglected such the risks of missing goods, poor quality, non-compliance of goods, and non-compliance with international standards.