100%(12)12 out of 12 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 7 pages.
DUALPLEX 360 CASE1Dualplex 360 CaseUniversity of Maryland University College
DUALPLEX 360 CASE2Dualplex 360 CaseThe Dualplex 360 would incite claims made from US consumers on the basis of several torts, which is classified under civil law. A tort is defined as awrong. Tort law is divided into categories. They are intentional torts, negligence and strict liability. UMUC Learning Topic (n.d.)seeks to define all three divisions of torts. “Intentional torts generally require that one “intended”to cause the consequences of the act. Negligence generally requires that one be at fault for committing the act. Strict liability require neither intent nor fault ; simply causing harm to an individual while performing one form an enumerated list of strict liability torts gives rise to damages” (para 3). The Dualplex 360 caused harm to many individuals based upon an overheating issue when left in an electrical outlet for too long. Customers would allege negligence, fraud and product liability, if legal action was pursued. Negligence was evident amongst the researchers and developers for the Dualplex 360. The tort focuses on the defendant failing to exercise a duty of care. It was known prior to positioning the product on the market that the electronic would overheat, potentially causing serious damage and injury. Four elements need to be proved in order to establish negligence. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute (n.d.) cites that, “1. The existence of a legal dutythat the defendant owed to the plaintiff. 2. Defendant’s breach of that duty. 3. Plaintiff’s sufferance of an injury. 4. Proof that defendant’s breach caused the injury” (para 2). All of these would be proved in a court of law. The defendant, being New Brand Design, Inc. had a responsibility of providing an electronic that would not only be efficient for intent of purposes, but is safe for everyone to use. That duty was breach and therefore caused damage to people’s property and even themselves by a fire. These elements provide revelation of negligence being evident by the defendant.
DUALPLEX 360 CASE3Fraud comes in various degrees. With this case, the plaintiffs could also argue that the product created a false pre-tense, which therefore established harm to consumers, The harm being damaging property and physically. By definition, through UMUC Learning Resource (n.d.)fraud, “may be an intentional failure to disclose a material fact that includes another into action which results in her harm. This may be the case when a legal duty to disclose the material fact