I don't really understand the legal arguments here:

> the manufacturer can even be sued [...] This hinges on the fact that the second-hand buyer has not entered into a consentual relationship with the manufacturer after the purchase.

Wait, but the first owner (presumably, for the sake of argument) agreed to this. Why isn't it the first owner's fault for not disclosing it to the second owner? Shouldn't they be sued instead? How is a manufacturer held responsible for an agreement between parties that they could not possibly be expected to have knowledge of?