Tina has the right to sue the company that sold her the product arguing that it had been recalled as potentially dangerous to consumers and she should be compensated for the damages caused by the dryer.
<h3>What should Tina do?</h3>
Tina must seek help from the Federal Trade Commission, this institution is in charge of protecting consumers and promoting competition between companies.
Based on the foregoing, Tina can rely on this institution to sue the company that sold her the dryer because this product had been withdrawn from the market for being dangerous.
So the company that sold him the dryer was committing a crime for selling this object. Additionally, this company must compensate Tina for the damages caused by this product.
Learn more about consumer in: brainly.com/question/950909
Answer:
US Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal’s last-minute push to garner support for Democratic US vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris by deploying culinary soft power has sparked a social-media storm among Indians.
On the night before the election, Jayapal, the first South Asian-American woman elected to the US House of Representatives, tweeted about making “paneer tikka” in honour of the California senator, saying the latter mentioned on Instagram that her favourite north Indian food was any kind of tikka.
Explanation:
Answer:
The communities government can homeless people by having more accessible work and home opportunities. For the sick people the government can help them by giving them free bus rides to their doctor appointments and making the cost of their medication less expensive. And for the poor people the government can help by increasing there pay and by also lowering the cost to live in their cities or states.
Explanation:
Answer:
In Griffin v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination not only allows a criminal defendant to refuse to take the witness stand during his trial, but it also bars the prosecutor from urging the jury to interpret that silence as an indication that the defendant has something to hide. The Court reasons that the right against self-incrimination would be meaningless if a defendant’s exercise of the right could be used against him.
Hope this helps
