The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Would I have some kind of legal case...

rated by 0 users
Answered (Verified) This post has 2 verified answers | 8 Replies | 3 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
16 Posts
Points 440
Zach posted on Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:40 PM

against a company that issues a faulty good and the said good injures me? For instance, if I were to buy a malfunctioning plasma TV from Wal-mart and while installing it was electrocuted, what kind of legal repercussions for Wal-mart would there be, if any? Would I need to rely on insurance to pay my bills while recovering? What would other consequences for not properly ensuring product safety, such as bad press etc. be? This is assuming the scenario occurs under a system governed by Austrian principles, obviously.

  • | Post Points: 35

Answered (Verified) Verified Answer

Not Ranked
Male
2 Posts
Points 45
Verified by Zach

Zach:
Wal-mart was just an example, the scenario being essentially anyone selling me anything that doesn't work because somewhere along the line while it was being produced, or injures me in some way and was bought under the pretense it would. It could be bad produce, selling me a bottle of medicine full of duds, and so on. Obviously competition encourages such malfunction being prevented, but what about in exceptions? If nothing happens to the retailer what would happen to the manufacturer , if anything?

You didn't get whatever you voluntarily exchanged for. This is fraud -- most likely, unintentional. Stores don't take these items back just to avoid litigation, but also it's awful PR to not do so. Were a store to have a real hard-ass insurance policy, it would most likely have a policy where its workers inspect higher-priced goods prior to exchange.

  • | Post Points: 40
Top 10 Contributor
4,114 Posts
Points 66,145
Moderator
Verified by Zach

they would probably be due medical bills and compensation for the assault on your person.

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 25

All Replies

Top 500 Contributor
70 Posts
Points 1,335

No one would have bought a TV that gave an electric shock under an economy with Austrian principles.

Wal-Mart wouldn't exist, either.  If it did, it wouldn't be the hell-raiser it is, because it couldn't sell bad products at low prices; it would have to sell good products at relatively low prices under an Austrian economy.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
7 Posts
Points 65

Supporter of Dr. Paul for Life:
Wal-Mart wouldn't exist, either.  If it did, it wouldn't be the hell-raiser it is, because it couldn't sell bad products at low prices; it would have to sell good products at relatively low prices under an Austrian economy.

Sorry, are we thinking of the same company? What is so particularly bad about Wal-mart? Why wouldn't it exist?

Zach:
against a company that issues a faulty good and the said good injures me? For instance, if I were to buy a malfunctioning plasma TV from Wal-mart and while installing it was electrocuted, what kind of legal repercussions for Wal-mart would there be, if any?

Wal-mart doesn't manufacture TVs (to my knowledge), so likely none.

Zach:
if I were to buy a malfunctioning plasma TV from Wal-mart

I presume you meant to say you *unknowingly* purchased a malfunctioning plasma TV. Otherwise, you knew it was malfunctioning and it's unlikely any retailer would knowingly sell you a faulty (or used, for that matter) product without an "as-is" disclaimer.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
16 Posts
Points 440
Zach replied on Tue, Apr 28 2009 2:59 PM

Supporter of Dr. Paul for Life:

No one would have bought a TV that gave an electric shock under an economy with Austrian principles.

Elaborate please, what Austrian principle?

Wal-mart was just an example, the scenario being essentially anyone selling me anything that doesn't work because somewhere along the line while it was being produced, or injures me in some way and was bought under the pretense it would [work/not cause harm]. It could be bad produce, selling me a bottle of medicine full of duds, and so on. Obviously competition encourages such malfunction being prevented, but what about in exceptions? If nothing happens to the retailer what would happen to the manufacturer , if anything?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
4,114 Posts
Points 66,145
Moderator

can you briefly state why you presuppose that you would have no case based on some principles you feel we hold to?

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
16 Posts
Points 440
Zach replied on Tue, Apr 28 2009 3:09 PM

If I have it was unintentional. I'm not trying to imply there wouldn't be any legal leeway.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
2 Posts
Points 45
Verified by Zach

Zach:
Wal-mart was just an example, the scenario being essentially anyone selling me anything that doesn't work because somewhere along the line while it was being produced, or injures me in some way and was bought under the pretense it would. It could be bad produce, selling me a bottle of medicine full of duds, and so on. Obviously competition encourages such malfunction being prevented, but what about in exceptions? If nothing happens to the retailer what would happen to the manufacturer , if anything?

You didn't get whatever you voluntarily exchanged for. This is fraud -- most likely, unintentional. Stores don't take these items back just to avoid litigation, but also it's awful PR to not do so. Were a store to have a real hard-ass insurance policy, it would most likely have a policy where its workers inspect higher-priced goods prior to exchange.

  • | Post Points: 40
Top 10 Contributor
4,114 Posts
Points 66,145
Moderator
Verified by Zach

they would probably be due medical bills and compensation for the assault on your person.

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 25
Top 75 Contributor
541 Posts
Points 10,260
ama gi replied on Fri, May 1 2009 12:26 AM

Yes, you would have a legitimate claim to compensation.  Yes, the business in question might pay out based on moral conviction, but more likely they will try to preserve their reputation in the marketplace.

You would first need to put together proof that you were harmed, and the business establishment was responsible.  You would have medical records showing you were in the hospital; you would need to have an electrician certify that your house was properly wired; eyewitnesses of what  happened; etc.  Then you would call WalMart and demand they pay up, and if they give you any mierde, take it to the media.

"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (9 items) | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap