Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 03:15:41 +0000 (UTC) From: "Pete Brown" <petes.inboxnopsamternet.com> Subject: Re: Tire Complaint
I agree with you Chris. The issue in question would appear to be only rectifiable under civil law and not criminal law. The case against Ford was I believe brought about as a result of a civil action and not a criminal prosecution. I was just wondering what specific part of (US) criminal law Saab would have breached in knowingly continuing to put "faulty" (word used advisedly) tyres on their cars. If Saab were involved in false accounting ( a la Enron) then that is clearly a criminal act but I'm not sure about the tyre issue. Because I am new to the newsgroup, I may have missed the posts that started this debate, maybe the use of the term "criminal" was not meant in its strictly legal form but in a more vernacular way. eg The large amounts of good food wasted every day is "criminal" when so many people are starving. Just a few thoughts. Any lawyers out there! Pete Brown "Chris O'Malley" <comalley2nopsamrr.comnopsamrr.com> wrote in message news:WZ48b.108074$Sq.20479190nopsamter.nyc.rr.com... > um, i believe a product safety issue would be a civil wrong, aka a tort, and > not a criminal act as you state. Good luck finding an ambulance chaser to go > after saab for a "criminal act". > > >Under US Law, a company that fails to consider a product safety > >issue that it knows will put product users at risk of injury has > >committed a Criminal act. The question here isn't just what Saab > >knew; it's also what Saab has a legal duty to know. I am using > >the term appropriately. > >
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
