Product liability law has never been my practice area, but I would guess there are some here who have more familiarity with it that I do. For the life of me, I cannot understand why manufacturers of products made for the aviation market are not held to the same standards as other manufacturers. I understand that the "H" in NHTSA is "Highway" and that the momentum behind an automobile recall is infinitely greater than a few bug smashers. But that doesn't explain to me the phenomenally cavalier attitude of aviation component manufacturers. There is the UCC and the implied warranty of merchantability, and/or warranty fitness for a particular purpose. We now learn that almost all of the mags sold by Unison in the last year or so contain defective parts, and could fail after a few dozen hours. They knew about the problem and have yet to do anything except issue an SB requiring owners to disassemble their mags and inspect for incipient failure. Oh, and we get to repeat that process every 25 hours. I've read everything from problems with brushes to the phenolic block which opens the points (Years ago I found out why they put that package of special grease in with new points when I did a tuneup on the Olds with the 455 Rocket engine.) Slick will continue to ship defective mags from stock. There is no solution, but they hope to have a fix in August. There is no clear admission of defectiveness on Slick's part, but the paperwork has escalated to a mandatory SB from Lycoming. It has not progressed to an AD yet. I understand that some problems may be revealed by a mag check, but some may not. I may not be as bad off as those who regularly fly at higher altitudes, where carbon tracking from deteriorating brushes may be more of a problem. If you use your aircraft for transportation, the utility is lost when you have to taxi back to the hangar when your new mags fail the runup. If these products were inexpensive, or the technology cutting-edge, I would be a little less disappointed. But these are top dollar items, the technology was mastered in my $99 Wards lawnmower, and the ideas have been around for the better part of a century, There is no reason why we couldn't have a class certified in a decent jurisdiction. Why aren't manufacturers held to reasonable standards with respect to design. assembly and inspection? And when defects are found, why is it the purchaser's responsibility to cure the defect, at his expense?