Comment by piekvorst

6 days ago

It means you can sue for product liability under common law. Negligence, breach of warranty, or strict liability, depending on jurisdiction. Court decides after harm.

21 comments

piekvorst

Reply
sham1  6 days ago

And pray tell, who comes up with common law? And who enforces the judgment of the court? And what gives the court the authority to judge on the matter of glass shards in your tomato paste?

Fun fact about the common law in fact is that it came into existence because the English government after the Norman conquest needed a unified theory of law for the king's courts that was distinct from manorial and canon laws. 1154 Henry 2 the Plantagenet ascended the throne and wanted a code of law that would apply everywhere in the realm as opposed to local laws, the aforementioned manorial laws, as well as being secular, unlike canon law.

So without the government, you wouldn't have this common law your legal theory relies on.

pixl97  6 days ago

Right, this typically works very well after you spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars getting all the stuff to court in the first place to have a trial drag on for years in discovery all the while the hospital is sending out debt collectors.

Oh, that's if it wasn't actually a shell company in the first place that has no assets.

A good portion of the things you mention existed before we had food regulations, you could sue the business if you had issues with them. The problem is the vast portion of the population is far too poor to do that. Regulations stop the harm before it happens.

  • piekvorst  6 days ago

    My claim is narrower: the principle of retaliatory force is practicable. That is, a society can function using only courts, class actions, and government-as-plaintiff, without preemptive editcs on screw sizes or battery compartments.

    As I said earlier in this thread:

    > Determining the best means of applying the principle of suing corporations in practice is an very complex question that belongs to the philosophy of law.

    • pixl97  5 days ago

      >My claim is narrower: the principle of retaliatory force is practicable

      Ah yes, the school of theory that says it's better to clean up the spilled milk after its been contaminated with uranium waste.

      2 replies →

vrganj  6 days ago

Sue them in who's court? With who to enforce the ruling?

The... government?

  • piekvorst  6 days ago

    Courts, police, and the army are proper. That's government. The difference is what kind of government. A proper government holds a monopoly on retaliatory force, it acts after someone initiates force or fraud. It doesn't dictate your screw size, battery compartment, or production method before you've harmed anyone.