[Draft] Quality in Consumer Goods

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Have you considered doing anything with 5b further to your reply to me up this page on the previous page?

I'd lean towards preferring something explicit that nations shouldn't completely abandon consumer protection laws in favour of using the mechanism here in respect of imported goods but I'm easy enough on this point in light of your explanation. I suppose if member states fuck over their own citizens on this point it has little impact on the competitiveness of Bananamen produce.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Have you considered doing anything with 5b further to your reply to me up this page on the previous page?

I'd lean towards preferring something explicit that nations shouldn't completely abandon consumer protection laws in favour of using the mechanism here in respect of imported goods but I'm easy enough on this point in light of your explanation. I suppose if member states fuck over their own citizens on this point it has little impact on the competitiveness of Bananamen produce.

After having thought some more about it, I'll get rid of 5b. I'll also make the point on encouraging domestic consumer protection laws more explicit.

[Sciongrad]

Last call!

[McMasterdonia]

This is a really solid proposal, great stuff. I will gladly approve this when it is introduced.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'll have some edits probably by Saturday.

[PotatoFarmers]

OOC: Is the use of the word "seller" and "manufacturer" intended? To me it seems to be really confusing and some clause like clause 2 would be quite difficult to understand. Maybe some rewording could be made?
Also I think "international commerce" should be properly defined? Imo without a definition it might cause an issue as things which may solved in a nation's courts are unnecessarily brought up to the CIC.

[Sciongrad]

This has been updated fully and I intend to submit soon!

[Tinhampton]

c. whether the warning itself would alert a reasonably prudent person to the danger;

You are missing a [/list] tag after the semicolon in Article 5(c)(c).

Why does the WA need a Court of International Claims when it already has the WAJC? ;p

[Attempted Socialism]

Is "strictly liable" in clause 1 a reference to the US (/Common Law?) term strict liability? There is AFAIK not a direct equivalent in Civil Law, with reference to nulla poena sine culpa. We're far beyond my limited foray into law, but to my knowledge, in Denmark 'objective liability' (The closest you'd get to what I know of strict liability) is fairly narrow and always explicitly grounded in law; otherwise, you would need to establish culpability, even in tort law.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Is "strictly liable" in clause 1 a reference to the US (/Common Law?) term strict liability? There is AFAIK not a direct equivalent in Civil Law, with reference to nulla poena sine culpa. We're far beyond my limited foray into law, but to my knowledge, in Denmark 'objective liability' (The closest you'd get to what I know of strict liability) is fairly narrow and always explicitly grounded in law; otherwise, you would need to establish culpability, even in tort law.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters. ... sc.Default)&firstPage=true

Under the ordinary Danish rules on product liability developed through case law, the producer is responsible for damage caused by a defective product if they acted negligently. However, the burden of proof for establishing negligence is not onerous and if the injured party can prove that the product in question is defective, the courts will often find that negligence has been established.

Under the Product Liability Act, the producer is subject to strict liability for personal injury or damage to consumer goods caused by defective products. The injured party must prove the damage caused, the defect and causation.

I mean if culpa is established if it happened, then the problem is solved.

[Sciongrad]

Is "strictly liable" in clause 1 a reference to the US (/Common Law?) term strict liability? There is AFAIK not a direct equivalent in Civil Law, with reference to nulla poena sine culpa. We're far beyond my limited foray into law, but to my knowledge, in Denmark 'objective liability' (The closest you'd get to what I know of strict liability) is fairly narrow and always explicitly grounded in law; otherwise, you would need to establish culpability, even in tort law.

The reference to strict liability in clause 1 is a holdover from an earlier draft. While Americans use the phrase strict liability to refer to the standard of liability for product-related torts, it's actually more like a modified negligence analysis. You'll see in clause 5, which discusses specifically the types of claims a plaintiff can make, that only manufacturing defect claims approach true strict liability.

In general, though, you are right that this resolution draws entirely on American common law.

[Christian Democrats]

This has been updated fully and I intend to submit soon!

May we ask why our delegation isn't acknowledged in the latest draft?

[Attempted Socialism]

Is "strictly liable" in clause 1 a reference to the US (/Common Law?) term strict liability? There is AFAIK not a direct equivalent in Civil Law, with reference to nulla poena sine culpa. We're far beyond my limited foray into law, but to my knowledge, in Denmark 'objective liability' (The closest you'd get to what I know of strict liability) is fairly narrow and always explicitly grounded in law; otherwise, you would need to establish culpability, even in tort law.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters. ... sc.Default)&firstPage=true

Under the ordinary Danish rules on product liability developed through case law, the producer is responsible for damage caused by a defective product if they acted negligently. However, the burden of proof for establishing negligence is not onerous and if the injured party can prove that the product in question is defective, the courts will often find that negligence has been established.

Under the Product Liability Act, the producer is subject to strict liability for personal injury or damage to consumer goods caused by defective products. The injured party must prove the damage caused, the defect and causation.

I mean if culpa is established if it happened, then the problem is solved.

I'm obviously not a legal expert, but I think there's an issue in translation, because in Danish law we AFAIK don't have the same concept of strict liability (The closest is to my knowledge 'objective liability'). The Danish Law on Product Liability has several exemptions (§7) to liability, which from my impression of strict liability means they are not analogous. Culpability has to be established by the consumer, according to §6.

My question wasn't as much about Danish law, though (I can ask lawyer friends if I ever feel the need), as the applicability of this resolution in a non-Common Law country. If there's no concept of strict liability, will Article 1 still work? Which brings me to...

Is "strictly liable" in clause 1 a reference to the US (/Common Law?) term strict liability? There is AFAIK not a direct equivalent in Civil Law, with reference to nulla poena sine culpa. We're far beyond my limited foray into law, but to my knowledge, in Denmark 'objective liability' (The closest you'd get to what I know of strict liability) is fairly narrow and always explicitly grounded in law; otherwise, you would need to establish culpability, even in tort law.

The reference to strict liability in clause 1 is a holdover from an earlier draft. While Americans use the phrase strict liability to refer to the standard of liability for product-related torts, it's actually more like a modified negligence analysis. You'll see in clause 5, which discusses specifically the types of claims a plaintiff can make, that only manufacturing defect claims approach true strict liability.

In general, though, you are right that this resolution draws entirely on American common law.

... which answers my question, though the language bugs me.

[Sciongrad]

This has been updated fully and I intend to submit soon!

May we ask why our delegation isn't acknowledged in the latest draft?

I withdrew your name because the current draft has changed so significantly since your last round of contributions that I wasn't sure if you would even still support the proposal. Some of your significant contributions, like the CIC, remain, though, so I can acknowledge your delegation in the proposal if you so desire.