• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the manufacture responsible for consequential damages if a condom breaks?

Should Manufacturers and/or Retailers be responsible for consequential damages?

  • No

    Votes: 10 76.9%
  • Yes - Both

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • Yes - Just Manufacturer

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Yes- Just Retailer

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes - If Planned Parenthood put a staple in it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    13
Since women say us guys only last 10 seconds (Like Al Bundy) the 10 pumps left will never be an issue.

As far as the rest goes. Maybe we can have a radar gun in the room to make sure we don't exceed the pumps per second rate of the condom.

Of course, then we're gonna need condoms for extra wet applications, dry applications, extremely tight tracks and ones that can handle it when the track is loose.

And then if the track conditions change, say from dry and tight to extra wet and loose then we're gonna have to have condoms that cover multiple applications.

Maybe they can make condoms with restrictor plates on them.

And don't slur Al Bundy. He scored 4 TDs in one game, which is more important than anything else in life.
 
NO VOTE, again.
Its rigged and biased, why the slur against Planned Parenthood ?
The manufacturers are at 99.999...% , what more do you want ?
The problem is man, not the manufacturer.

It's not a slur EW, it's a fact that Planned Parenthood did, years ago, pass out condoms with staples through them. So, the answer is a legitimate one. Had an individual used that condom and become prego then could Planned Parenthood have become liable?

Before you respond that we all know sex causes pregnancy and it's a risk one takes when participating in even protected sex, let's look at this:

Ford & Firestone teamed up to build the Ford Explorer and utilize Firestone tires on it. We all know that SUV's are subject to roll-over and traffic crashes are an inherent risk of driving, heck they're an inherent risk of sleeping in your bed if a drunk drives near your house. So, with the knowledge that SUV's are subject to a higher roll-over rate than other types of vehicles and that crashes are an inherent part of operating a motor vehicle, does that get Ford & Firestone of the hotseat for selling the Explorer's with Firestone tires on them that were subject to blow outs causing accidents?

And curious, how in the heck is this poll rigged? It has a solid no, a solid manufacturer only, a solid manufacturer & retailer and a solid retailer only with an option to bust on Planned Parenthood just for fun.

Now come on, throw some sugar on your Frosted Flakes and enjoy the debate.
 
Legally speaking - in rulings of the Supreme Court a common rebuttle gainst manufacturer or provider fault is if they knowingly used inferior materials or methods - the failure of which could have been prevented had they not scrimped or used a lesser quality substance (etc).

And the courts stlil lean on the reasonableness standard such as was the ruling of the Clam-chowder fish bone. "It is reasonable to expect a smallfish bone ot be present in a fish-dish . . " is basically what it came down to - and that netted in no fault of the business.

However, McDonald's scorched coffee ruling hinged in the plaintiffs favor because it was proven that McDonald's knew their coffee was over the safety-limit and they chose in numerous situations to not switch out the burners on their pot-systems in countless restaurants. Instead - they chose ot pay fines over the years and negate the fault through negotions with other injured indiviudals with payoffs that were quite.
They were eventually slammed for skirting the issue.

ergo why there are some situations where the quality of condoms is a legitimate and tangible concern with evidence - and then there's most people's stories.
 
The manufacturer shouldn't be liable. That said, I wouldn't mind a NIST standard for durability. It worries me that I really have no idea have tough the condoms really are when I buy a box.
 
Back
Top Bottom