Introduction
The Dualplex 360 case study is about a series of events marred by the quality of laptops produced by NBD; a leading multinational in the technology industry. The company’s manufactured laptops were exposed to an excessive heating problem that caused some of their users in the United States to suffer from burn injuries and destroyed their property. This study raises substantial legal questions touching on NBD regarding liability for the damages suffered by the concerned customers. The customers will have no other option but to file claims of gross negligence and product liability against the institution (UMGC A, n.d). Most importantly, the questions around warranties and whether there’s a possibility of comparative negligence or the misuse of the product are all considered. This case study focuses on the complicated legal issues surrounding the Dualplex 360 incident. It looks at the legal arguments and considerations from the customers’ and NBD’s perspectives.
Consumers Claims
First, the customers can advance a claim of gross negligence against NBD. The research and development department team in NBD knew quite well about the overheating problem before releasing the Dualplex 360 laptops into the market. With this knowledge, NBD then conducted a cost-benefit analysis and decided that the payments from court cases would be less than the cost incurred in designing and manufacturing a new laptop. By selling a knowingly harmful product without further addressing the problem, customers can seek relief from the manufacturer for disregarding consumer interests. This gives, as a base, the principle of negligence.
Alternatively, customers might file a product liability suit against NBD that charges the Dualplex 360 laptops were defective and dangerous, operating much hot. Alternatively, they may sue because NBD had not adequately issued warnings or instructions about a hazard that even a child could see: failing to unplug the units once their batteries were fully charged. This will be a critical factor in serving warranties in this case, the fact that such disclaimers were included in the instruction manual, that clause disclaiming all the warranties, and the one warning against leaving the laptop plugged in.
To provide a warranty disclaimer, NBD specified that all warranties were excluded in the instruction manual for Dualplex 360 laptops. A disclaimer was put up saying that the seller does not offer any warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular use and advises the customers not to leave the laptop plugged in once the battery is overcharged (UMGC F, n.d). Given that NBD mentioned the product’s disclaimer, it is safe to say that they assumed the responsibility of educating customers about the associated risks of the product. This disclaimer and the degree to which it may limit or rule out warranties would possibly be one of the leading legal obstacles the litigation would face.
Consumers Damages
The other applicable damages in this given case are special damages. Special damages have been designed to compensate the aggrieved party for the actual monetary loss that he has suffered as a necessary consequence of the defendant’s actions. In the case of Dualplex 360, special damages that may be claimed include the injuries or damage caused to property due to the overheating and ignition of the laptops(UMGC B, n.d). Such damages may consist of the medical bills occasioned by the injuries suffered, the expenses incurred while repairing or replacing the damaged property, and the quantifiable financial losses directly occasioned by the defective laptops. Customers seek special damages to be put in the same position as before the alleged breach of duty by NBD and recover the damages incurred directly due to its negligence or defective product.
Secondly, punitive damages are another possibility for recourse in this situation. Punitive damages, which supplement the compensatory damages, serve as punishment for an offender to discourage the behavior and prevent a case recurrence (UMGC D, n.d). In the Dualplex 360 case, if NBD is shown to have acted recklessly or with a conscious disregard for the safety of its customers by knowingly selling a hazardous product without taking significant measures, customers can claim punitive damages. Punitive damages would make it clear to NBD and other companies that they will be responsible for their actions and punished if they repeat them.
NBD Defense
One probable defense that NBD might deploy is comparative negligence. This defense blames the customer for the fault he bears which caused his injury or damage. NBD could claim the customers were not acting reasonably or ignored the instruction manual warning that clearly instructed them not to leave the laptop plugged in after the battery is fully charged. Ignoring the warnings could be what caused the burning of the customers in more than 5 cases, leading to serious injury. NBD defends itself against the liability by arguing the application of the comparative negligence doctrine, which shifts the blame to the customers.
Another defense that NBD can use is misuse of the product defense. This points out the argument that the customers may still need to use the laptops under the Dualplex 360 as recommended by the manufacturer (UMGC C, n.d). The lapse overheating of the laptops could result from practices that are beyond the recommendation by the manufacturer, for example, the use of the computer under unfavorable conditions or in activities that the laptop was not designed to undertake. NBD denies that his defective product or negligence was solely the cause of injury to the customer in question. Instead, it claims that the product caused damage to the customer because of its misuse.
The outcome of the defense would highly depend on the facts and proof that had been provided in support of the case and the applicability of the relevant laws and legal precedents in the given scenario. The efficacy of the defenses will be circumscribed by the strength of the plaintiffs’ claims and by the extent of NBD’s ability to challenge the allegations. Lawyers’ engagement will be necessary if we develop a sound defense without lawyers.
Conclusion and Recommendation
A brief review of this case indicates that New Brand Development knew of the defective Dualplex 360 laptops and conveniently chose to ignore this problem. Even if they had a short disclaimer in the instruction manual, this should not clear them of any charges. The knowledge of NBD about the defect is causing a lot of concerns. It is not a question if the laptops will break down; it is a question of when the breakdown will occur. NBD gave false information for needing to be more straightforward and open with the customers.
Under such conditions, NBD should thus held liable for special and punitive damages. As much as some customers did not read the instruction manual; it was within NBD’s jurisdiction to ensure that they were not selling a defective product to their customers. The disclaimer does not justify them. NBD was supposed to wait to launch the Dualplex 360 laptops. It is important to note that NBD expected the lawsuits and calculated they would pay less in settlements than they would spend on redesigning the laptops. Again, this stresses that they didn’t care how safe the consumer would be with this product, and they need to be responsible and answer for their readership.
References
University of Maryland Global Campu A (n.d.). Duaplex 360. https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/mba/mba630/2225/course-resource-list/dualplex-360.html?ou=683934
University of Maryland Global Campus B (n.d.). Fraud and Negligence Torts. https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/scor/uncurated/mba/2218-mba630/learning-resourcelist1/fraud-and-negligencetorts.html?ou=1057751
University of Maryland Global Campus C (n.d.). Negligence and Product Liability.https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/scor/uncurated/mba/2218-mba630/learning-topic-list/negligence-and-productliability.html?ou=1057751
University of Maryland Global Campus D (n.d.). Tort Damages. https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/scor/uncurated/mba/2218-mba630/learning-topic-list/tort-damages.html?ou=1057751
University of Maryland Global Campus F (n.d.). Warranties. https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/scor/uncurated/mba/2218-mba630/learning-resourcelist1/warranties.html?ou=1057751
write