simple if everyone could afford the proper legal process. So on and so forth until the root cause is discovered, wherein the game ends. If CA was at fault, then maybe CA will then sue its consultant over the issue, and it may continue. If Facebook wins vs CA, then CA was at fault.Ĥ. If Facebook loses vs CA, then the game is over and Facebook is found to be at fault. If B wins its case against Facebook, Facebook continues and sues CA.ģ. If B loses its case against Facebook, the game is over.Ģ. B now is wondering who to sue: Facebook or CA. Facebook allowed CA to gather information about B (A's friend), and B NEVER provided consent. So lets actually talk about the case then.Ĭambridge Analytica asked user A for permission. Z just needs compensation for Z's issues alone.Īnalogies seem to be failing. Let Y's lawyers figure out if Y or X is responsible. Whether X or Y is at fault is still ambiguous from Z's perspective (no reason for Z to come up with legal arguments and determine the "right person to sue").Īll Z has to prove is someone wronged him, and that Y is the next person up the chain. and its also the morally sound way to move things forward.įor better or worse, Z (the typical user) has a relationship with Facebook (Y). In this #2 case: if Z sues X directly, Z will fail (because X is not at fault). (Maybe it's Y's fault: if Y was using the suspensions incorrectly and X can prove it, then the Y-sues-X case will fail). Depending on the agreements / contracts Y could be the root cause, or X. Y then has to argue with X to figure out who was responsible for the suspension failure. Z sues Y for a million bucks to cover the cost of back surgery or something. Sometime while customer "Z" was driving, the suspension fails. Consider the case where a car-parts company creates a suspension ("X"), who sells their suspensions to Ford (aka: Y). Is the problem truly Y's fault or X's fault? "Z sues Y" doesn't necessarily implicate Y as the root cause, it just proves that Y was "along the way" towards the root cause.Ģ. In this specific case fitting a jacket with a four inch collar caused a zipper failure - the zipper was probably cheaply made anyways but if the cut of the jacket had been different there likely wouldn't have been an issue.Īsking for Z to sue X has a number of issues:ġ. After a few months the teeth had weakened in that area to the point where the zipper would frequently come off the tracks there. I recall having a long necked jacket as a kid where the zipper wore down heavily around the collar since the neck was so long that it ended up being too tall for normal day-wear - and thus a lot of unnecessary stress was put on the zipper mechanism when it was partially zipped up. Basically, with an assembled product, it's unreasonable to expect consumers to try and identify the actual fault of the design.Īs an anecdote on this topic. Well one potential outcome of a suit against YKK for a zipper failure might be that, in fact, the zipper itself didn't fail due to poor quality reasons - but instead the fabric shed and accumulated in the teeth wearing them down over time.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |