|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hi Robyn;
As do many good posts, yours has opened a door. I must ask:
Would the product then be "unsuitable for the use intended" (car with bad
breaks)? Would the seller then be obligated to refund? (I''m making an
assumption that the seller would not claim that in fact the product was
suitable and therefore assume the buyer's risk of furture losses due to bad
charts.)
Happy Trading!
Bob Hoff
In a message dated 98-01-14 16:59:05 EST, you write:
> I am a lawyer (retired). If you know about the problem - and know that it
can
> wreck
> a trade (I'm taking your word that it can) - then don't use the product.
If
> you do
> - it's like driving your car knowing that the brakes are bad. In lawyer
> terms - the
> product might be defective - but if you use it knowing it's defective -
you'
> re
> probably comparatively negligent. In a lot of states - it would be up to a
> jury to
> apportion percentages of fault between you and the manufacturer. BTW -
this
> is a
> general statement of law. Products liability law varies widely from state
> to
> state. If you think you have a case against anyone for anything - you
> should
> explore it with a local lawyer. Robyn
>
> Allan L. Kaminsky wrote:
>
> > I'm not a lawyer, so I don't pretend to know the answer. There might not
> > be one until such time as a case actually was litigated.
> >
> > My feeling is, I may know about the problem (in some esoteric sense) but
> > not think it's going to affect me. Then, in the middle of a large
> > intraday position, "I go blind." All of this while using a product that
> > the publisher maintains is suitable for the task and has collected $2000
> > for. The presumed liability might be worsened if it were shown that the
> > manufacturer knew about the problem but didn't fix it.
> >
> > Regardless of what disclaimers there are on shrink-wrapped packages,
> > these is an implied warranty of fitness when such products are targeted
> > for and sold into markets.
> >
> > If I were an insurer providing liability coverage for such a firm, I
> > don't think I'd be happy about that.
> >
> > Allan
>
>
|