Class Notes (835,262)
Canada (509,050)
LAW 525 (115)
Lecture

Law525 Law of the Marketplace chapter 3

7 Pages
374 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Law and Business
Course
LAW 525
Professor
Nick Iannazzo
Semester
Winter

Description
Chapter 3 – Product Liability Private Law Remedies: 1. Contract Law • Only buyer can sue seller (if buyer gives product to someone else, they cannot sue) 2. Tort of Negligence Contract Law: - Sue for damages ($) for breach of contract terms if the quality, fitness or performance of the product does not comply with express or implied terms - Implied Terms: 1. From trade practices 2. From Sales of GoodsAct - Privity of Contract Negligence: - in the event there is no privity nor implied statutory warranties then the plaintiff must try to prove negligence - Negligence – failure to exercise reasonable care & results in a reasonable foreseeable injury to the plaintiff Negligence in Product Liability Cases: 1. Negl. Manufacturing of a Product 2. Negl. Design of a product 3. Failure to Warn Foreseeable Users of Dangers 4. Negl. Misrepresentation Causes of Action: 1. Breach of Contract 2. Tort of Negligence 3. Statutory Cause of Action Resch V. Canadian Tire Corp. - Step-father purchased bicycle - Bicycle defective - Step-father’s son injured - First go after under breach of contract and SGA - Sales of Good Act – Fitness for Purpose S. 15(1) – a “buyer” gets an implied warranty of fitness for purpose - Is son a “buyer” under s.15 (1)? - S. 1 “buyer” the person who buys or agrees to buy goods - S. 2(1) – a contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the S transfers or agrees to transfer the property in the goods to the B for a money consideration, called the price, and there may be a contract of sale between one part owner and another - Court Decided NO. The buyer was the step-father because 1. No evidence that son paid money 2. Buyer is person who enters into the contract to buy the goods - If son is not the “buyer” under the contract to purchase the bicycle there is no privity of contract - Court refused to acknowledge an exception to the privity of contract doctrine - Sales of GoodsAct (/contract) Claim FAILED - Negligence Action SUCCEEDED Carelessness was that the bike was given back to the boy instead of held. All three were liable SGA S. 15(1) Fitness for Purpose: - “where the B, expressly or by implication, makes known to the S the particular purpose for which the goods are required so as to show that the B relies on the S’s skill or judgement and the goods are of a description that it is in the course of the S’s business to supply (whether he is the manufacturer or not), there is an implied....(in book) RegulatoryApproach to Addressing Business-Consumer Transactions: 1. Private Law Approach: a) Contract law & Tort Law b) Burden on Plaintiff to prove case on balance of probabilities (i.e. civil standard) c) Damages; Injunction 2. Regulatory Law Approach a) Statutes (e.g. Consumer ProtectionAct; Canadian Consumer Product SafetyAct) b) Government has an active role c) 3 types of Offences d) 2 Tracks – Criminal Track or Civil Track e) Inspectors & Investigators f)Remedies may include jail (often fines) 3 Types of Regulatory Offences: 1. Full Mens Rea Offence (“True” Criminal offence) 2. Strict Liability Offence 3. Absolute Liability Offence Full Mens Rea Offence: 1. Government must prove: a. Actus reus (the act); and b. Mens reus (intent or recklessness - Look for words like willfully, knowingly, with intent, intentionally...that suggests mens reus required 2. Burden of Proof upon: Government 3. Standard of Proof: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Strict Liability Offence (“SLO”) 1. Government must prove: Actus Reus (the act) 2. Burden of Proof upon: Government 3. Standard of Proof: Beyond Reasonable Doubt 4. Defences available to accused Due Dilligence Defence (reasonable care Defence) Accused must prove defence on a balance of probabilities Note: Most regulatory offences are SLO Absolute Liablity Offence (“ALO”): 1. Government must prove: Actus Reus (the act) 2. Burden of Proof upon: Government 3. Standard of Proof: Beyond Reasonable Doubt 4. Defences available to accused None Note: ALO is VERY RARE. If an accused can go to jail the courts have held that it cannot be an ALO (probably against the charter) Civil vs. Criminal Track: 1. Civil Track offences a. Less common b. Prosecution must prove offence on a ``balance of probabilities`` c. No Jail d. Administrative monetary penalties (``AMP``) 2. Criminal Track Offences a. More Common b. Used for intentional ``true Crime`` Offence, Strict liability offence, &Absolute Liability Offence c. Prosecution must prove offence on a ``beyond a reasonable doubt`` Regulatory Statute – Product Safety: - Hazardous Products Act (federal) - Canadian Consumer Products SafetyAct (Federal) – largely replaces hazardous products act recently - What constitutional Power authorizes the above statutes? 1. Section 91: subsection: criminal law Hazardous Products Act (HPA): - Federal law - “Criminal law” jurisdiction (R. V. Cosman’s furniture ltd. – 1977, Man. C.A.) - HPAonly applies to some consumer products - No recall powers, limited powers to investigate Canada Consumer Product
More Less

Related notes for LAW 525

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit