Nbd inc legal defenses the main defense that nbd inc

This preview shows page 6 - 9 out of 10 pages.

NBD Inc. Legal DefensesThe main defense that NBD, Inc. will argue is concerning the statement that was placed in the instruction manual provided with the Dualplex 360, “DO NOT LEAVE THE DUALPLEX 360 PLUGGED IN TO A POWER SOURCE AFTER THE BATTERY IS FULLY CHARGED. SELLER EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES. SELLER MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE. NOR IS THERE ANY OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY” (UMCG, 2019a).
7DUALPLEX 360 REPORTThis statement NBD, Inc. has provided in the instruction manual is providing protection from lawsuits and denying all warranties for the faulty Dualplex 360 computers. NDB would argue contributory negligence attributed to the plaintiff(s) on the grounds that it was their responsibility to read and adhere to warnings and notes printed in the instruction manual. NBD would also argue misuse of a product because the warning in the instruction manual tells the usernot to leave it plugged in after its fully charged. When the warning is adhered to, then the device will not overheat and catch fire and it will work as its designed to. Had the plaintiff(s) failed to do so, then they were not using the product as it was intended. Some customers have admitted that they ignored the warning and some admitted to not even reading the instruction manual (UMGC, 2019a). The only problem with the warning is that it does not fully explain the risk or dangers of what will happen if the Dualplex 360 is left plugged in after the battery is fully charged. Although NBD has done the bare minimum by placing a warning in the manual, it is misleading to the consumer by not explaining the full consequences and thus allowing them a fair opportunity to decide whether or not the Dualplex 360 is safe for use. Due to this lack of additional information the disclaimer may be ruled null and void thus allowing NBD to held liable along with fixing or replacing the defective Dualplex 360’s. Conclusion and RecommendationsThe strangest thing to happen is that the known defect seems to have only occurred in Dualplex 360’s that were shipped to the United States, even though it is present in all of them. NBD, Inc. will most likely be found liable in court for their actions. The research and development team knew about the defect and upon doing a cost benefits analysis, decided it was easier to pay out lawsuits than redesign and fix the Dualplex 360 (UMGC, 2019a).
8DUALPLEX 360 REPORTThen the R&D tried to cover up the defect by placing a very vague statement about not leaving the device plugged in after the battery is fully charged with language about warranties that the average person may not completely understand. This statement regardless of whether consumers read it or not, was not fully explanatory enough to cover NBD’s rear end. NBD, Inc. should recall all the Dualplex 360’s that have been sold in the United States, Europe, and South Africa so that they can properly be fixed or the defect corrected so that it doescause harm to consumers. An actual sticker or statement card should be placed in plain view of where the consumer can see it and read it, that better explains the warranties and that the defect has been corrected, so their mind can be put at ease. The research and development team should

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture