In contrast to the argument, some b

In contrast to the argument, some believe that strict liability for defective products is not a good idea. The British press has criticized the willingness to sue over injuries caused by defective products. The main argument used is that the threat of strict liability strangles innovation and enterprise; manufacturers, it is argued, will be less likely to launch ground-breaking new products if they are afraid of being sued if those products turn out to be dangerous, through no fault of the manufacturer, or that the threat of strict liability might lead to manufacturers taking excessive care, so that the costs of the product are pushed up so high that they are priced out of the market. It hardly compares with the risk of people being killed or injured by unsafe products.

ในทางกลับกันบางคนเชื่อว่าการโต้แย้งสำหรับผลิตภัณฑ์ที่บกพร่องของหนี้สินที่เข้มงวดไม่ได้เป็นความคิดที่ดี สื่อมวลชนอังกฤษได้ยอมรับการฟังความคิดเห็นที่จะฟ้องมากกว่าบาดเจ็บที่เกิดจากผลิตภัณฑ์ที่บกพร่อง เหตุผลหลักที่ใช้คือการคุกคามของหนี้สินที่เข้มงวดได้กดดันวิสาหกิจและนวัตกรรม หากผู้ผลิตกลัวการถูกฟ้องเมื่อมีการเปิดตัวผลิตภัณฑ์ใหม่ที่มีความเสี่ยงที่จะเกิดอันตราย ผลิตภัณฑ์เหล่านั้นจะกลายเป็นอันตรายผ่านความผิดของผู้ผลิตหรืออาจนำไปสู่ภัยคุกคามของหนี้สินที่เข้มงวดของผู้ผลิต การดูแลมากเกินเป็นการเพิ่มค่าใช้จ่ายของผลิตภัณฑ์ที่จะผลักดันให้สูงขึ้นเพื่อให้พวกเขามีราคาที่ออกจากตลาด มันแทบจะไม่เปรียบเทียบกับความเสี่ยงของคนที่ถูกฆ่าตายหรือได้รับบาดเจ็บจากผลิตภัณฑ์ที่ไม่ปลอดภัย

Results (English) 1:

In contrast to the argument, some believe that strict liability for defective products is not a good idea. The British press has criticized the willingness to sue over injuries caused by defective products. The main argument used is that the threat of strict liability strangles innovation and enterprise; manufacturers, it is argued, will be less likely to launch ground-breaking new products if they are afraid of being sued if those products turn out to be dangerous, through no fault of the manufacturer, or that the threat of strict liability might lead to manufacturers taking excessive care, so that the costs of the product are pushed up so high that they are priced out of the market. It hardly compares with the risk of people being killed or injured by unsafe products.On the other hand, some people believe that the argument for a product that is defective of strict liability is not a good idea. British media have accepted to hear opinions to sue over injuries caused by defective products. The main reason is the threat of strict liability has been pressured and innovative enterprises. If manufacturers are afraid of being sued when they launch new products with the risk that there will be danger. Those products will become dangerous through manufacturer's fault or could lead to the threat of strict liability of the manufacturer. Too much care, increase the cost of products that will push up the price to get them out of the market. It hardly compared to the risk of people who were killed or injured from unsafe products.

Results (English) 2:

In contrast to the argument, some believe that strict liability for defective products is not a good idea. The British press has criticized the willingness to sue over injuries caused by defective products. The main argument used is that the threat of strict liability strangles innovation and. enterprise; manufacturers, it is argued, will be less likely to launch ground-breaking new products if they are afraid of being sued if those products turn out to be dangerous, through no fault of the manufacturer, or that the threat of strict liability might. lead to manufacturers taking excessive care, so that the costs of the product are pushed up so high that they are priced out of the market. It hardly compares with the risk of people being killed or injured by unsafe products. On the other hand some people. believes that the argument of strict liability for defective products is not a good idea. The British press has admitted to the idea to sue over injuries caused by defective products. The main reason is the threat of strict liability has put pressure on enterprise and innovation. If producers are afraid of being sued when it launches new products at risk of harm. Those products are becoming endangered through no fault of the manufacturer or could lead to the threat of strict liability of the manufacturer. Caring too much increases the cost of the product to be pushed higher, so they are priced out of the market. It hardly compares with the risk of people being killed or injured by unsafe products.

Results (English) 3:

In contrast to, the argument some believe that strict liability for defective products is not a good idea. The British. Press has criticized the willingness to sue over injuries caused by defective products. The main argument used is that the. Threat of strict liability strangles innovation and enterprise; manufacturers it is argued,,Will be less likely to launch ground-breaking new products if they are afraid of being sued if those products turn out. To be dangerous through no, fault of, the manufacturer or that the threat of strict liability might lead to manufacturers. Taking excessive care so that, the costs of the product are pushed up so high that they are priced out of the market.It hardly compares with the risk of people being killed or injured by unsafe products.

.On the other hand, some people believe that the argument for defective products of strict liability is not a good idea. Mass media English listening accepted opinions to sue over injury caused by defective products.If the manufacturer for fear of being sued when a new product is launched with a risk of danger. Those products will become dangerous through the fault of the manufacturer or may lead to the threat of the strict liability of manufacturer.It hardly compared to the risk of being killed or injured from a product that is not safe.