Question 1
In my opinion, U.S. retailers should not be liable, and companies should be exempted from tort liability. This is because the U.S. government has failed to set measures and regulations to monitor quality control and scrutinize imports from China.
Through this policy, U.S. consumers are bound to face consequences such as severe illnesses, death, or physical impairments due to consuming contaminated products (Priest, 1991).
Question 2
Steps to minimize liability exposure
They should warn consumers of the dangers by using warning labels on their packages that say that the origin and ingredients of the product are unknown; then, this poses a responsibility to the consumer to decide whether to use the product or not (Shavell and Steven, 1984).
Retailers can also search for new, cost-effective suppliers to supply their customers with efficient and effective goods that do not have the potential to harm them.
Assessing the company potentially
Assessing the company’s potential can be done by scrutinizing the unique and significant features of the company product. If those product features are difficult to duplicate, then this defines that the business will succeed in overseas due to little competition and high demand for the product. Another common approach is examining the product’s success in the domestic market. if the company is successful in the U.S market, then there is a chance to also succeed in global markets in places where similar conditions and needs exist
Finally, the product may still have export potential regardless of its declining sales in the United States. Sizeable markets might exist if it was once highly demanded in the U.S. despite its decline in sales.
Labeling these products will, however, cause business losses and a decline in sales volume because no consumer will risk using products that are labeled and can cause potential harm to the user. In conclusion, it is senseless for a company to purchase and sell inferior goods.
References
Priest, G. L. (1991). The modern expansion of tort liability: its sources, its effects, and its reform. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(3), 31-50.
Shavell, S. (1984). Liability for harm versus regulation of safety. The Journal of Legal Studies, 13(2), 357-374.
