As consumers across the nation are struggling to cope with the burdens associated with Chinese drywall (financial or/and health), a question beginning to be asked with some consistency is, “What caused or allowed the Chinese drywall crisis to take place? . . . What are its origins?” This two-part article will explore in brevity the backdrop of the issue, and the relationship between China and the U.S
[4] Watered down domestic protectionism in the traditional sense is not a bad thing, as it simply alludes to the fact that free-trade is facilitated in a more efficient manner. The problem arises at a later point in the consumer protectionism context, where the TBT and SPS agreements are so limiting upon government that certain standards are left to industries.
Consumers who have been harmed in the Chinese drywall crisis currently being litigated may have understandably relied on U.S. based builders who used defective drywall. The pending litigation will provide insight to consumers across the country who are awaiting direction as to where and how they may seek a remedy.
The legislative branch is the default means of attack for consumers in the “consumer protectionism war.” In the context of imported consumer good product liability matters, it is the consumer who experiences firsthand the consequences of the good, and thus consumer interests – protectionism – will ultimately rest upon the shoulders of the legislature.
The Chinese drywall crisis American consumers are facing is a unique and complicated legal scenario, in that some defendants in the lawsuits that have been filed are Chinese entities. The U.S. and Chinese legal systems vary drastically, as well as roles played by attorneys.
Where remedies between nation-states are at issue, a fundamental understanding of the [...]
Many American consumers are likely scratching their heads pondering the question, “how is it possible for a defective product from China to be so broadly distributed…and moreover, where and why did this oversight occur?
International import and export standards may play a role, and the purpose of this article is to examine methods of how agreements [...]
Unlike the legislature or domestic distributors, U.S. courts are not in a place to proactively promote consumer protection until it is faced with a particular matter. That is not to say interpretation of legislation or treatment of matters properly before a court can not be useful in setting precedents or sending messages. Unfortunately, when foreign defendants fail to respond to service of process requests, courts have limited options outside of a finding of contempt. To find an entity in contempt means little to an exporting businesses, already having demonstrated complacency toward the prospective litigation.
The global recession has raised allegations of “dumping,” which is the practice of charging a lower price for a good in a non-domestic market than the price charged in the manufacturer’s own.
Over the course of the previous century, the United States and China have been engaging in an economic relationship premised upon free-trade and cost-effectiveness. The almighty dollar has had dire consequences upon the American economy and the American consumer.
The issue seems to be one of exclusions – what is or isn’t covered under an applicable insurance policy contract? Of course, the answer depends on the contract in question and will vary from consumer to consumer, circumstance to circumstance. The issue being exclusions, however, has been raised by some companies as being applicable to Chinese drywall by way of labeling the presence of it as “pollution” – courts however, require for the exclusion to apply it must be narrowly construed to “traditional environmental damage.” How then, can Chinese drywall be considered to be excepted by a “pollution exclusion theory” when the term “traditional environmental damage” seems to suggest something occurring either naturally and/or externally, bearing some relationship to the “environment.”
