LAWS 1038-23W - Self-Reflection - Week 4

.docx

School

Fanshawe College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1038

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CorporalEmuMaster1113

Week 4 ETHICS LAW 1038-23W SELF-REFLECTION Product Safety, Quality Assurance and Reliability Review the course materials from this week’s lesson and complete this Self-Reflection on your own and in your own words. This is not group work. Your Self-Reflection should be thoughtful and written in full sentences that are grammatically accurate. This week’s Self-Reflection is worth 10 marks. A consumer bought a stereo system and claimed that it broke soon after it was purchased and used. This consumer claimed that the broken stereo system constituted a failure to live up to the warranty. While there was no instruction manual or paper copy of a warranty that came in the packaging of the stereo, the consumer assumed that a warranty would still be valid because the salesperson at the store had referred to one and assured the consumer that this particular stereo system would last a lifetime and be worth the investment. When the consumer tried to return the stereo system to the store the consumer told the salesperson at the return counter that the stereo system seemed to be broken and that they had noticed that there was a warning label on one of the speakers that warned of maximum decibels and to not use the speaker connection for headphones but the consumer thought that there might be a wiring issue because the connection that was supposed to accommodate the speaker actually only connected headphones. The salesperson at the return counter responded by saying that a stereo system had been recalled last year because consumers were damaging their hearing by plugging their headphones into a mislabelled connection but the sales person could not remember which model or brand that stereo system was although it looked like the one the consumer was trying to return. Identify what would be the warranty issue(s), the negligence issue(s), and what could be considered unreasonably dangerous. (2 marks) Warranty issues are right in this case because when the consumer bought the stereo from the store, he should have checked the warranty card of the product. If he did not find it in the box, he should have told the store owner. Negligence issues can be that the salesperson was not able to provide the consumer proper information about the product and did not give the warranty card too of the stereo. They also told consumer that the product will last longer and they did not know that product was damaged last year also too by many consumers. The think that could be considered unreasonably dangerous if the stereo could have led to hearing damage to consumer. 2

Week 4 ETHICS LAW 1038-23W SELF-REFLECTION Do you think the consumer is entitled to a warranty in this case? Explain why or why not. (2 marks) I do not think so that consumer is entitled to a warranty in this case. In my opinion, consumer is not receiving warranty because of not paying attention before he was buying the stereo this was his responsibility to know full details and specification or studied about the product online before buying it from the store. There are lots of product that are not having the warranty card in the market, but one should always ask own his own about it so I think consumer should be responsible for the warranty. Do you think the consumer acted irresponsibly at all? Explain why or why not. (2 marks) Yes, I think consumer acted irresponsibly in this case because when you buy any electrical or electronic device it is your responsibility to ask the salesperson about the warranty card if he is not telling you about that. He should have checked the warranty card at home if they had not given him or told him about that. Moreover, nowadays it is easy to check online about the product and they provide full details about it how much rating the product have, or product has any warrant or not. Do you think the store could be held liable? Explain why or why not. (2 marks) Yes, I think store should be held liable for selling a item of which they are not providing any 2

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help