RE: Need legal advice?

["Mark Harrison" <Mark.Harrison@xxxxxxx>]

Retail law isn't common-sense!

 

This is why I'm wondering if there are any lawyers on the list...

 

... whatever the intentions of the bulk-buy organiser, or the purchaser, if an insurance company asks "where did you get this product", and discovers the bulk-buy, then they might chose to sue.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Watt [mailto:kennwatt@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thu 30/05/2002 12:14
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Need legal advice?

Don’t think so Mark, would the actual organiser of the bulk buy not really be classed as a co-ordinator or middle man, therefore not responsible in any way as he is, effectively, acting on behalf of UKHAer A. Therefore the burden of responsibility would be either placed with UKHAer A for not buying a UK product or with the manufacturer for selling a defective one?

 

Since organiser D isn’t offering a warranty and only a brokering service I wouldn’t see how the insurer could have a claim against them in particular.

 

K.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Harrison [mailto:Mark.Harrison@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 30 May 2002 12:05
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxxSubject: [ukha_d] Need legal advice?

 

The combination of the BB threads and Nik's has made me worry. This ISN'T about profit or not, and it doesn't apply to the Audiotrons (see end) :-)

 

Let's run by a quick scenario:

- UKHAer "A", buys product "B" from US supplier "C", through a bulk buy organiser "D".

- 6 months later, "A" suffers an injury as his "B" explodes.

- This injury forces him to take 12 months off work.

- Fortunately, he is insured, and his insurance company pays his disability benefit

- His insurance company then starts the normal process of looking for someone to claim the money back off.

- Increasingly, it is standard practice to issue "shotgun suits" - ie to issue suits for damages against everyone in the chain... manufacturer, US supplier "C", _and_ probably bulk-buy organiser "D".

... it's possible that the courts might rule that D had a responsibility, had committed an offence by selling something without CE certification, and this offence had ended up in an injury... therefore D was responsible?

What d'ya think?

M.

________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________


For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________

For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.