MRKT 661 Week 6 Professional Email Assignment Example

Professional Email: Lid Complaints on Our Private-Label Pressure Cooker and What Product Liability Law Means for the Launch

Email

To: Martin Okafor, Director, Private-Label Products

Cc: Legal Department

From: Brand Manager, Kitchen Appliances

Subject: Urgent: three lid-opening complaints on the store-brand 6-quart pressure cooker, decisions needed by tomorrow

Martin, I am asking for four decisions by end of day tomorrow on our 6-quart electric pressure cooker: pausing sales, reporting to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, notifying our supplier and preparing a customer notice. Below are the facts, the legal reasons I believe we have to act now, and what I recommend.

What We Know

In the past two weeks, three customers have reported that the cooker's lid opened while the pot was still under pressure. In each case the customer turned the lid after the float valve appeared to drop. One customer was splashed with hot liquid and treated for a minor burn at an urgent care clinic. The other two were not hurt. The cookers came from the same production lot, and the customer service team has logged the serial numbers. We have sold about 4,200 units since launch in August, all under our own brand, made for us by a contract manufacturer.

Why Our Name on the Box Matters

Product liability law has moved steadily toward holding sellers responsible for defective products. In MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916), New York's highest court let a driver hurt by a collapsing wooden wheel sue the carmaker even though he had bought the car from a dealer, reasoning that a maker's duty of care runs to everyone its carelessness foreseeably endangers; after that decision, an injured person no longer needed a contract with the maker. In Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1944), Justice Traynor wrote separately to say that a maker ought to bear the loss from a defective product even without fault, since it can guard against defects better than any buyer and can spread the cost of injuries across everyone who buys. Nineteen years later the California Supreme Court made the concurrence law (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 1963): a maker that sells a power tool its buyers will use without inspecting it answers for injuries the tool's defect causes, whether or not anyone was careless.

Courts have since extended strict liability to sellers in the chain of distribution, and a company that sells a product under its own brand is generally treated as its manufacturer, because customers rely on the brand rather than the unseen maker. For legal purposes, the customer who was burned bought our cooker, not our supplier's, and we should plan as if we will be answerable for it. Our contract with the supplier may let us recover costs from them later, but it will not shield us from a customer's claim.

What Kind of Defect This Might Be

Courts recognize three kinds of defect, and each points to a different response. A manufacturing defect exists when a unit departs from its intended design, for example a faulty lid latch in one production lot. A design defect exists when the design itself is unreasonably dangerous. In Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978), the California Supreme Court held that a product can be defective in design if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect, or if the risks of the design outweigh its benefits, considering factors such as the feasibility and cost of a safer design. A warning defect exists when the instructions or warnings do not adequately tell users how to avoid a danger.

The facts so far fit more than one category. If only one lot is affected, a manufacturing defect is the most likely explanation. If the float valve can drop while pressure remains, the lid lock may be inadequately designed, since safer interlocks are standard in the category. And if customers are misreading the float valve, our quick-start card, which says the lid "can be opened when the valve drops," may be an inadequate warning. Engineering should examine the returned units before we draw conclusions, but we should not wait for that answer to act.

The Reporting Clock

Federal law gives every business in a consumer product's chain, retailers like us included, a duty to tell the Commission right away once the information in hand reasonably suggests a defect that could amount to a substantial hazard, or a risk of serious injury or death that is unreasonable (Consumer Product Safety Act, 1972). The Commission's rules interpret "immediately" as within 24 hours of obtaining reportable information, and they allow a firm a short period to investigate if it does so promptly (Substantial Product Hazard Reports, 2024). A company does not need to be certain that a defect exists before reporting, and late reporting can lead to civil penalties. Three complaints of the same failure, one with an injury, is the kind of information that may trigger the duty. Legal should make that call, but I believe the clock has already started.

Records and Communication

Two smaller steps protect us whatever the engineers find. First, Legal will likely ask us to preserve every record related to the cooker, including complaint logs, emails, test reports and the supplier's specifications, so customer service should not delete or edit any ticket. Second, marketing should review every claim we make about the cooker. Our product page calls the lid "foolproof," and that word could be read as a promise of performance that the complaints contradict. I suggest we remove it now and keep all public statements factual until the investigation ends, saying what we know and what owners should do, without speculating about the cause or minimizing the reports. Customers who were frightened by a lid opening deserve a direct answer, and a defensive one would hurt us more than the facts.

Decisions Requested

• 1. Pause online and in-store sales of the affected lot today, and place the remaining stock on hold.
• 2. Authorize Legal to draft and file our hazard report with the federal safety regulator before the 24-hour window closes.
• 3. Notify the contract manufacturer in writing and request their inspection records for the lot.
• 4. Approve a customer notice, drafted with Legal, telling owners how to confirm that pressure has fully released before opening the lid.

I know a pause will cost us holiday sales. It will cost far less than an injury we could have prevented, and it protects the trust customers place in our name. I am available all day tomorrow to walk through the details. This email summarizes general legal principles, and Legal should confirm each step.

Thank you,

Brand Manager, Kitchen Appliances

References

Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413 (1978).

Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2064 (1972).

Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal. 2d 453 (1944).

Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963).

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382 (1916).

Substantial Product Hazard Reports, 16 C.F.R. pt. 1115 (2024).