Differences in Legal Practice between the United States of America and England
User Rating: 0 / 5
- Details
- Hits: 3953
On the basis of antitrust laws, there are evident differences in practices and regulations between the United States and England. (Ball & et.el, 2013) explain that in the United States the concept of fixing the price of a commodity is viewed as being illegal, per se . This means that the practice of price fixing is considered illegal, while in perspective, it does not lead to actual damages and resultant injuries. On the other hand, England is a part of the European Union, which has a governing treaty; The EU Treaty of Rome. The treaty deals with the trade practices that are restrictive such as the Per Se concept in the United States that is considered illegal in the antitrust law. For example, a cartel in England that will allow the consumers to enjoy a fair share of benefits will be considered legal in England. However, this can only be considered illegal if this is misused, from dominance of a cartel to lead to damages to the consumer.
According to (Ball & et.al (2013), in the United States, the antitrust laws are made in way of placing emphasis on the impact that a business may have on the consumer of a commodity. Whereas in England, the laws made are in such a way that they focus on the competition in the industries and this will lead them to focus on the objections of the rivals. This will greatly affect international businesses that will be expected to draft different approaches for their branches in the United States and England. They have to ensure that trade in both areas though different meets similar goals. They have to adopt a practice of focusing on the consumer in the United States and also develop a culture of competition among other similar businesses in England.
In England, the laws allow the companies the use of various defenses such as ‘developmental risks’ and ‘State-of-the-art’. This allows the designer or the manufacturer to indicate the latest form of known technology that they used in the manufacturing or designing of a product. The manufacturers and designers are also allowed to cap damages. This is a different case in the United States as it is seen that American juries have awarded damages that have amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. This will affect international trade, where according to Ball & et.al (2013), some companies will choose not to invest in the United States since they may face lawsuits and damages for their products, unlike in countries such as in England.
In England the laws will limit or prevent awards of product liability the English courts. However, if the cases proceed to the court of law, in the event the defendant wins, the plaintiff in the lawsuit is required by the court of law to settle all the legal fees of the defendant and other costs that may have arisen from the actions of the plaintiff. In the United States, cases of product liability go before the various juries for hearing. The juries will be required to award the plaintiff damages that are punitive and the damages that are real or actual or apparent. The punitive damages are pushed to ensure that the defendant is punished. In the event that the plaintiff was seriously injured or in the event the sympathy of the jury has been aroused, millions may be awarded to the plaintiff as a way of teaching the defendant a lesson. In England, judges and not the juries as in the case of the courts in the United States hear cases of product liability. In England, even if the judge is sympathetic with the plaintiff, punitive damages may not necessarily be awarded, Ball & et.al (2013).