Trade Practices Act

Torts with more than one basis of liability can and in deed are often predicted on the previously considered basis of liability, namely negligence and strict liability. It is very important to ascertain which bases of liability is relied on since such determination will also govern the defense which may be asserted as well as the scope of liability (Raz 17). The manufacturer of a defective product, for example, or the retailer who sold it, may be held liable to the person injured by the product on a number of theories-some in contract and some in tort.

And the tort liability may be based on intentional acts, negligence, or conduct justifying the imposition of strict liability (Raz 21). At early Common Law, a manufacturer or supplier of a chattel could be held liable for injuries sustained through its use only by those with whom he was in privity of contract. And as to persons with whom there was no privity, there was no liability either in tort or contract (Raz 24). As can be seen from the discussion above, Bob and her sister had a legal duty to prove that the vehicles they had bought from Toyota Company were defective and low quality.

It is also very clear that the producer/manufacturer remains liable for any defect with his products. This study believes that the manufacturer of Toyota cars may voluntarily or involuntarily have caused the defects. This relates to negligence outlined in the Product Liability Act. This needs to be established before delving into further litigation. In the event that the court establishes negligence on the part of the manufacturer then the aggrieved party will be entitled to full compensation and refund of their money and damage caused.

It must also be established that whatever happened was as a result of the defects in the product since if it were a mere accident then the producer cannot be held liable at all. It has also been indicated that Bob and her sister have a right to claim repair, maintenance or replacement in the event that they discover their products are sub-standard. In this regard, Bob had no reason to sell the car since he could have it replaced or repaired.

Selling it to other users was like solving a problem with another problem, as in, why would he sell a product that is defective to another? This study believes that the manufacturer of Toyota cars had a case to answer and should compensate Bob’s sister all her damages. Moreover, he should have Bob’s car replaced or repaired for that matter. Conclusion This study has discovered major Acts as found in USA Consumer Law. It has also linked this law with toyota's competitors. The reader must now be familiar with Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and its applicability.

Again, it has analyzed Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the study has applied very well to the case of Casey Consumer and the debt collectors. Further, the reader has been acquainted with the principles of Product Liability Act and it has been seen that a manufacturer is liable for defective or low quality products. This study delights in the fact that USA Consumer Law does not incline to one or the other party but seeks to protect both the claimant and the defendant.