The problem is that many products (worth $290 million) sold in the
United States are manufactured in China. Any toxic or defective products
imported from the country affect both the retailers and the customers. The
essay indicates that consumers are permitted by liability laws to sue retailers
for defective or toxic products, even though they did not manufacture the
products.
Conclusion
The essay concludes that the government is better placed to protect the businesses and consumers in its territory. In other words, the government should conduct an inspection of all products imported from other countries to prevent harmful effects on customers and retailers
2. Evidence to support Author’s Opinion
The first evidence that the author utilizes is the explanation that the government has enough money to protect businesses and consumers. The author believes that the government has enough resources to conduct the inspection of all foreign merchandise the same way it does for toothpaste. The essay elaborates that after encountering toxic toothpaste from China, the Food and Drug Association (FDA) inspects every toothpaste shipment and that the same should apply to other products. The author says that the government should not wait for harm to occur. Secondly, the author argues that the inspection costs are too high for the retailers and that they may have to pay huge compensations for mistakes that were never theirs. Here, the author mentions Foreign Tires Sales, Inc. (FTS). FTS stated that it could not settle the recall concerning the defectively produced tires without losing everything or becoming bankrupt.
3. Information Missing from the Essay
Unfortunately, the author fails to tell the important information in the
essay is how foreign manufacturers could be held responsible for producing and
distributing defective or toxic products. Sisum
and Timnoney (2011) discussed that when the goal is to sue a defendant for
damages or injuries incurred following the purchase and use of a product, there
is a need to understand the distribution chain and the specific requirements
for corporate or foreign defendants. It is important for the plaintiff to track
the pathway through which the products flow from the manufacturer onto
distribution and, finally, the customers. So, the first party to consider is
the product manufacturer that resulted in the injury. The manufacturer should
have an insurance policy, and all the involved parties in design, marketing,
and manufacturing should be traced. Sisum
and Timnoney (2011) argued that allegations of defective foreign products
continue to rise and are a reality in global economic operations. Generally, two-thirds
of product recalls in the U.S. are on imported goods and mostly on products
from China.
Each country must understand the unique legal requirements for pursuing claims against the foreign manufacturer. Such knowledge would enlighten the plaintiff about the required time and expected expenses for the process of suing foreign manufacturers. It is important to understand that foreign manufacturers selling their goods in the U.S. experience similar product liability policies that apply to domestic manufacturers. Even then, plaintiffs that intend to pursue legal redress when the defendant is a foreign manufacturer may have experienced some legal issues in pursuit of compensation. If, for example, the foreign manufacturer knows that either part or the complete product they produce is shipped or distributed in a particular state, then such a foreign entity can be subjected to personal jurisdiction in the U.S. court (Sisum & Timnoney, 2011). This also applies to cases where there is evidence of continuous or regular contracts between a foreign manufacturer and a given state.
4. My Essay on the Same Topic
The global economy is significantly affected by the defective and toxic
goods from foreign countries, such as China. China manufactures several
products for different companies including the United States. When the country
supplies dangerous good, therefore, there is a great potential harm on
retailers and buyers. More often, however, customers use the authority granted
by the product liability laws to sue the parties that sold them the defective
or dangerous products. No country is comfortable with such incidents, and governments
are likely to take it upon themselves to ensure that inappropriate products do
not make their way into their states.
However, the U.S. government has not invested adequately in inspecting
products that retailers ship from foreign countries. This leaves most of the
work upon retailers, the very expensive operation of ensuring the products
shipped from abroad is safe enough to be sold to domestic consumers. The fact
that the government is not covering all the shipments in its inspection indicates
that it might not have adequate resources to address the issues. Therefore, it
is necessary that foreign manufacturers be held accountable for the state of
the goods they export. If this becomes the policy, the FDA will not have to
inspect toothpaste from China and other foreign countries because the
manufacturer will compensate the harmed consumers who purchased its products.
Moreover, retailers such as FTS will not have to carry the huge burden of
recalls.
The economy faces more risks if manufacturers are not responsible for the injuries or inconveniences, and damages that result from their reckless or negligent operations. Although the U.S. courts subject foreign manufacturers to similar laws applicable to domestic ones, Chinese courts do not enforce the judgments from the U.S. The good news, however, is that a Chinese company may be sued in the U.S. if they own assets within the country or any other nation that acknowledges its judgment. It is also important to know that if none of these alternatives are applicable, it is still possible to sue the manufacturer in China. Manufacturers are at the beginning of the distribution chain and are often responsible for toxins or defects in imported products. The best way to improve the safety of goods traded in the global economy is to uphold manufacturers’ accountability for injuries and all the inconveniences they cause consumers.
