Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The Millennium Bug and Product Liability.
View graph of relations

The Millennium Bug and Product Liability.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

The Millennium Bug and Product Liability. / Howells, Geraint.
In: Journal of Information, Law and Technology, No. 2, 1992.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Howells, G 1992, 'The Millennium Bug and Product Liability.', Journal of Information, Law and Technology, no. 2. <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1999_2/howells>

APA

Howells, G. (1992). The Millennium Bug and Product Liability. Journal of Information, Law and Technology, (2). http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1999_2/howells

Vancouver

Howells G. The Millennium Bug and Product Liability. Journal of Information, Law and Technology. 1992;(2).

Author

Howells, Geraint. / The Millennium Bug and Product Liability. In: Journal of Information, Law and Technology. 1992 ; No. 2.

Bibtex

@article{3a1afe68c63e49ef82c2900a63cf6bd5,
title = "The Millennium Bug and Product Liability.",
abstract = "The millennium bug may well give rise to some claims in strict product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. This article considers the likelihood of success of such claims. It concludes that, as the Act only applies to products supplied within ten years of the harm being caused, claims relating to products supplied within the last ten years are likely to succeed as the risk of the millennium bug was known by 1990. The development risks defence therefore would seem to have no application. Indeed it is suggested that the defectiveness standard is a more appropriate mechanism for determining whether it is just to impose liability and there seems no reason why liability should not be imposed for the millennium bug. Indeed this may be one instance where there is a difference between liability in negligence and strict liability, since exceptionally some producers might be able to argue they acted reasonably in marketing a non Y2K compliant product.",
keywords = "product liability, millennium bug, development risks",
author = "Geraint Howells",
year = "1992",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Information, Law and Technology",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Millennium Bug and Product Liability.

AU - Howells, Geraint

PY - 1992

Y1 - 1992

N2 - The millennium bug may well give rise to some claims in strict product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. This article considers the likelihood of success of such claims. It concludes that, as the Act only applies to products supplied within ten years of the harm being caused, claims relating to products supplied within the last ten years are likely to succeed as the risk of the millennium bug was known by 1990. The development risks defence therefore would seem to have no application. Indeed it is suggested that the defectiveness standard is a more appropriate mechanism for determining whether it is just to impose liability and there seems no reason why liability should not be imposed for the millennium bug. Indeed this may be one instance where there is a difference between liability in negligence and strict liability, since exceptionally some producers might be able to argue they acted reasonably in marketing a non Y2K compliant product.

AB - The millennium bug may well give rise to some claims in strict product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. This article considers the likelihood of success of such claims. It concludes that, as the Act only applies to products supplied within ten years of the harm being caused, claims relating to products supplied within the last ten years are likely to succeed as the risk of the millennium bug was known by 1990. The development risks defence therefore would seem to have no application. Indeed it is suggested that the defectiveness standard is a more appropriate mechanism for determining whether it is just to impose liability and there seems no reason why liability should not be imposed for the millennium bug. Indeed this may be one instance where there is a difference between liability in negligence and strict liability, since exceptionally some producers might be able to argue they acted reasonably in marketing a non Y2K compliant product.

KW - product liability

KW - millennium bug

KW - development risks

M3 - Journal article

JO - Journal of Information, Law and Technology

JF - Journal of Information, Law and Technology

IS - 2

ER -