In message <[email protected]>, dated Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Richard
Nute <[email protected]> writes:
The manufacturer hasn't been damaged by the cert house, so there
is nothing that a lawyer can recover on behalf or the manufacturer.
Well, that's arguable. Time has been lost. Dollars have been spent.
The manufacturer can go to another cert house.
If there is one that deals with the same product. If not, and the
manufacturer cannot market the product, the cert house is in restraint
of trade and would need to justify its actions.
I am really surprised to learn this: it seems so different from what we
over here think we understand about the US legal system.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
