If in a country it&#39;s allowed to be sold a product with a harmful chemical, is the government or state legally responsible for it? Some time ago a substance used as a food preservative which is believed by some to be carcinogenic was allowed to be used. If in a case like that it is found at the time that it actually is so, is someone legally responsible for allowing it to be used, or at least not warning people about its consequences? I suppose this is something similar to the use of cigarettes, how does this work in these cases?
There is a saying that you can't sue city hall: that is applicable here. Governments enjoy sovereign immunity, and cannot be sued for their errors of judgment unless they specifically allow it. Safety regulations are an example of a situation where the government hold all of the power and shoulders none of the responsibility. If a government forbids sale or use of a substance on some grounds (could be safety, could be economic impact, could be something about preventing the moral decay of society), and the grounds later turns to be false, you cannot sue the government because of lost business opportunities. Generally speaking, that which is not prohibited is allowed, so there would have to be an affirmative duty for the government to prevent all forms of harm. If there were such a legal duty, there is a miniscule legal foundation for suing the government for shirking its duty. That is not a completely hypothetical possibility, in that the state of Washington imposes a constitutional duty on the legislature to provide public education, and the Supreme Court has done things to enforce this duty (the contempt of court fines are up in the realm of $80 million). Since there is no jurisdiction that imposes a duty on the government to absolutely prevent all harm, you won't be able to sue the government if they fail to outlaw a thing that is eventually proven to harm someone.
Your right to have your horse not be killed is not a consumer right. &quot;Consumer rights&quot; are rights that you only have because you are a consumer. The issue described in the question is not about consumer rights. The sign tells you that there are risks connected to using the car park (obviously because there are lots of cars driving around, there might even be car thieves), and you accepted these risks. It doesn't give the shop permission to do anything they like. Instead of a horse, imagine a shop worker walking around with a hammer and smashing windscreens of cars; that sign isn't going to protect them. But a shop worker collecting trolleys might accidentally bump into your car, and the sign might protect them in such a case. I'd say spraying chemicals strong enough to kill a horse shouldn't happen at all (I suppose these chemicals could also kill a human), and definitely not when there is actually a horse present. To me, it's closer to the employee with a hammer than to the employee with shopping trolleys, so a court should find the shop liable.
You would not be liable for a fine (If you think about it, how can you be - Australia does not have jurisdiction over you as you are in New Zealand, and you have broken no NZ law - Further, you declared the item to customs so even in Australia you could not be held liable) Looking at it another way, if you had gotten on a plane with it, declared it to customs on the arrival card, they would have simply asked to see it and made a decision whether to let it in or not - they would not fine you. Customs may or may not confiscate it (ie they may let it through). I've not sent a parcel to Australia, but I have imported seeds into NZ - I made a number of calls and emails to ensure I got the process right - expected to pay quite a lot of money to do it - in the end they just came straight to me - MAF did not even examine the parcel. Being that NZ and AU are pretty similar in terms of legislation (ie both the food standards are the same) - its probably actually Ok to send it anyway - in fact the Imported Food Control At 1992 - which I believe is applicable - specifically exempts many foods imported from New Zealand from the act. The last paragraph of this AU government web page states "The only New Zealand foods that are subject to the IFIS at the border are those classified as risk foods. Equivalence determination of food safety systems covering dairy products was reached in 2007 and seafood, uncooked pigmeat, chicken meat, coconut, pepper, paprika, peanuts and pistachios were aligned in 2011. This enabled these products to be brought under the TTMRA and removed the requirement for border inspection for these products."
Growing marijuana is very often legally classed as "manufacture of a controlled substance." In criminal law, "manufacture" tends to be explicitly defined to include cultivation, but this is in fact a reasonably common use of the term (it doesn't have to mean producing with machinery). And so it's extremely unlikely that anyone will be convinced that you even might have thought the agreement didn't cover growing marijuana. The intent of the parties is fairly clear there.
The relevant section of US patent law was already posted in an answer on one of the questions you linked, but I'll repeat it: 35 USC 271 (a): Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. Merely making a patented invention is infringement; it isn't relevant whether you sell it. It is also infringement if you use it yourself, regardless of who made it or whether you paid them, or whether you would have otherwise bought it from the patent holder. There are some special exceptions for things like certain kinds of pharmaceuticals, but I browsed the rest of 35 USC Chapter 28, and didn't see anything that would appear to be relevant in this case.
USA: 19 USC §1308 prohibits the import, export, or interstate sale of cat or dog fur: (1) In general It shall be unlawful for any person to— (A) import into, or export from, the United States any dog or cat fur product; or (B) introduce into interstate commerce, manufacture for introduction into interstate commerce, sell, trade, or advertise in interstate commerce, offer to sell, or transport or distribute in interstate commerce in the United States, any dog or cat fur product. A brief summary of state laws can be found this article at the Animal Legal &amp; Historical Center: A handful of states have laws concerning dog and cat fur. Alabama, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia prohibit trade in domestic dog or cat fur. Virginia also prohibits killing a dog or cat for its fur, while Florida prohibits killing a dog or cat with the “sole” intention of either selling or giving away the pelt of the animal. In Oregon, a person cannot buy or sell dog or cat fur that is obtained from “a process that kills or maims the cat or dog.” UK: In the UK, the trade in cat &amp; dog fur was banned by the The Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Import, Export and Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008, which were in turn passed to follow EU Regulation #1523/2007: The placing on the market and the import to, or export from, the Community of cat and dog fur, and products containing such fur shall be prohibited. More information about the legal consequences and enforcement of this law can be found at this review article. Finally, note that Cruella de Vil's actions did not involve trade in dog or cat fur; she acquired most of the puppies via legal means, and was planning to kill and skin them for her own personal use, not to sell the resulting articles to other parties. As such, I believe that her planned course of action would have been legal in the UK and in all US states except Virginia. The only unquestionably illegal act she undertook was directing Jasper &amp; Horace to steal Pongo's and Perdita's puppies.
1) Bob could disclose the PTSD condition and seek accommodation for it (in reality, controlled narcotics aren't actually used to treat PTSD but it isn't hard to imagine a situation where another controlled substance, e.g. ketamine, was used to treat this or some other Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disability and the absence of that disability was not a bona fide qualification of the job). The legal analysis in the case of the FBI (a federal government civilian civil service employer subject to special rules applicable to governmental employers), and a private employer, is not exactly the same, but it ends up in the same place. 2) Medical marijuana is, as a matter of federal law an oxymoron, because it is a Class I controlled substance that as a matter of law (contrary to reasonable facts) has no medical applications, and the FBI is charged with enforcing this law (among other agencies), so medical marijuana would legally disqualify someone from FBI employment. In Colorado which has legal under state law medical marijuana, employers have been allowed to discriminate based upon medical marijuana use because an employer is at a minimum allowed to treat federal law as enforceable. It is conceivable that some U.S. state other than Colorado which allows medical marijuana at the state level might reach a different conclusion as a matter of state law on the employment discrimination point, but potentially, the employer could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on a pre-emption argument so it would be a tenuous legal position to take.
There is, as far as I can see, no Crown exemption from the sale of goods acts (including the International Sale of Goods Conventions), but unfortunately for this patient the NHS has no liability either in logic or in law. The doctor provided a written prescription, for which there is no charge, and which allows patients to buy certain drugs. The patient took the prescription to a chemist's, which (for money) provided the drug specified in it. Even if the patient had noticed that the prescription was for the wrong form of medicine, the pharmacist has no discretion to alter it; if the prescription specifies tablets, the patient can either buy the tablets or not buy them and take the prescription back to the doctor. In neither case has either the doctor or the chemist committed any conceivable offence regarding sale of goods. (There might theoretically be a case for negligence, but it would never be worth either suing a doctor for an £8 prescription fee or reporting him to the authorities for writing a prescription for the right drug in the wrong form).