法律問題：關於產品需要回收
最近某隻牌子的化妝品被驗出含有重金屬成份需要回收，如果我有賣這個品牌的化妝品，有顧客向我購買該產品，用後出現不適需要索償，而該化妝品的生產商又倒閉，那麼我作為該產品的零售商，是否需要負上責任呢？先謝各位幫忙。 原帖由 kwaishing 於 2006-10-6 13:43 發表
最近某隻牌子的化妝品被驗出含有重金屬成份需要回收，如果我有賣這個品牌的化妝品，有顧客向我購買該產品，用後出現不適需要索償，而該化妝品的生產商又倒閉，那麼我作為該產品的零售商，是否需要負上責任呢？
'回收'係生產商對于消費者既安全責任,不受有關產品保用期既限制,
只要市面上仍有該產品被使用,在發現有安全問題時就要采取回收行動.
分銷商沒有安全責任,但係就要為'失實陳述'負責. Does HK have clause that protect consumer on this issue, cause if someone use defective product and cause problem, the worst case can be settlement for millions.
7 years ago, the airbags at my accord in US suddenly deploy while driving and costed me and my sister suffering from airbag burns at my face and arms...later on, they found out that it's due to defective sensor being install from factory, and they issue a recalled in US/ Can for older accord/ civic.I then file a lawsuit to sue Honda of America for medical compension, they not only pay for the bill, but also for the physical theaphy of that year (due to it cause a minor accident at the freeway) and they give me a brandnew 2002 Honda Accord EXL for the settlement...and for this matter, both Honda of America, and my local deal are responsible and have to give me settlement (as a distributer/ dealer need to pre check products before it release to the public)
[ 本帖最後由 art0925 於 2006-10-17 21:34 編輯 ] 原帖由 art0925 於 2006-10-17 21:32 發表
Does HK have clause that protect consumer on this issue, cause if someone use defective product and cause problem, the worst case can be settlement for millions.
HK is using Common Law System, no matter there are any written clauses, under common law duty of care and
negligence of tort law (under civil law), the producer and the sales company also may be liable for the damages.
(I am not sure there are any written clauses actually, need to check :P)
Actually I am not a law student, but studied some basic law concept of HK. If I am wrong, pls tell me, thx.
[ 本帖最後由 3ASV196 於 2006-10-19 00:47 編輯 ]
頁:
[1]