Team2_Dualplex360_15Sep2020.docx - Case Study u2013...

This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 7 pages.

Case Study – Dualplex 360 Project 5 MBA 630 Team 2 September 15, 2020
This report analyzes the employment law issues arising out of Colossal's subsidiary New Brand Design Inc. New Brand Design (NBD) is a company that designs, brands, and manufactures innovative electronic products, and markets and distributes those across the globe. NBD has been manufacturing and distributing a laptop computer name Dualplex 360 (UMGC, 2020a). The product was out to the market six months ago and selling out in the United States and Europe. However, customers reported that some laptops shipped to the United States have overheated and ignited when plugged into a power source for a long time. It has burned users and damaged properties in a few cases. NBD's development team was fully aware of the defect, but based on cost-benefit analysis, determined that the payouts from the lawsuit would be less than the cost of redesigning and manufacturing a new laptop. The development team and research covered up the defect but included a disclaimer statement in the instruction manual. However, the instruction manual didn't contain possible warnings regards to overhearing or danger issue. Although there is a warning statement in the instruction manual, customers ignored the warning or never read the instruction manual, so they did not notice it. This case is involving potential consumer claims against the NBD. This report will contain an analysis of the possible types of claims that the US customers could file in court against NBD, types of damages could be awarded under the claims and NBD's defenses. Given what is happening with the Dualplex 360, list the types of claims that the US customers could file in court against NBD and the arguments they might make for each element of their claims. US customers could file a negligence claim under tort law. Negligence is a legal doctrine that underlies many types of lawsuits and requires one to be at fault for committing the act, and the plaintiff must prove five elements (UMGC, 2020b):
the existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff unreasonable behavior by the defendant that breaches the duty of care causation in fact proximate causation an actual injury These five elements must be proved to be a success in a negligence claim. In this case, all these five elements are present to prove that NBD was negligent. The first duty of care owed part is establishing the nature and extent of the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff (UMGC, 2020b). NBD was fully aware of defects before releasing the product to the market but determined to refuse to redesign and manufacture the laptop because of their analysis

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture