Definition
In law, "product" most commonly appears as the foundational noun in products liability doctrine, where it refers to a manufactured or processed item placed into the stream of commerce by a seller, manufacturer, or distributor. The precise scope of what qualifies as a "product" for liability purposes is itself a legal question with significant doctrinal weight.
1. Products liability sense. A tangible item manufactured, assembled, or processed and sold or distributed for use or consumption. Whether software, electricity, blood, real property improvements, or professional services qualify as "products" for liability purposes varies by jurisdiction and is actively litigated. The distinction matters because strict liability regimes apply to products, while services are typically governed by negligence standards.
2. Commercial and accounting sense. In business and commercial law, "product" may denote the output or yield of a process — including the revenue or profit generated by a transaction or enterprise. Anderson's Dictionary of Law notes that product, in certain commercial contexts, is classed with repairs as part of current operating expenses, or treated as a residuum — the remaining output after deductions. In the pork-packing trade, Anderson notes that by general usage, "product" may exclude certain portions of slaughtered hogs, illustrating how trade custom can define the term's scope in commercial contracts.
3. Agency and negotiable instruments sense. Rapalje & Lawrence references product in connection with agency authority — specifically, the product of an agent's authorized act, such as a bill or note generated by an agent with authority to create it. Here, "product" means the legally operative instrument that results from the exercise of delegated power.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Anything that is produced; a result. Includes manufactured articles, chemical substances formed by reactions, and consequences of effort or circumstance.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Anything that is produced, whether as the result of generation, growth, labor, or thought, or by the operation of involuntary causes; as, the products of the season, or of the farm; the products of manufactures; the products of the brain."
The common meaning is broader and more neutral than the legal meaning. In law, particularly in products liability, "product" carries gatekeeping significance — whether something qualifies as a product determines which liability regime applies. A surgeon's advice is not a product; a surgical implant is. That distinction, invisible in ordinary language, is one of the most litigated threshold questions in modern tort law.
---
Common Confusion
"Product" is frequently conflated with "service" in products liability analysis. The product/service distinction controls whether strict liability or negligence applies in most jurisdictions. Hybrid transactions — where a seller both furnishes goods and provides installation or advice — require courts to determine the "predominant purpose" of the transaction. Researchers should not assume that anything sold commercially qualifies as a product for liability purposes.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The term "product" is deceptively simple and functionally ambiguous. In products liability research, the threshold question of what constitutes a product shapes the entire analysis — and the answer is not uniform across jurisdictions or time periods. Early 20th-century sources treat the term in its commercial and agricultural senses; the products liability usage did not crystallize until the mid-20th century, following the development of strict liability in tort.
Researchers using historical sources should be alert to this temporal shift. When Rapalje & Lawrence or Anderson reference "product," they are not invoking the modern tort doctrine. Anderson's trade-custom note about pork-packing reflects a contractual and commercial usage, not a tortious one — the question there is what was sold and whether it matched the agreed description, not whether a defect caused injury.
In modern corpus research, the term appears at the intersection of tort, commercial law, contracts, and administrative regulation (particularly FDA and CPSC regulatory frameworks). Cross-referencing product liability entries with successor liability and maritime law entries will reveal how courts have extended and limited the core concept across distinct legal domains.
When searching historical digests and reporters, "product" alone is rarely a useful search term. It must be paired with "defect," "manufacturer," "stream of commerce," "strict liability," or "warranty" to isolate the liability doctrine. In commercial contexts, pair it with "yield," "output," or "residuum" to locate accounting and contract usage.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Anderson's Dictionary of Law provides the most substantive historical treatment, though its entries are cross-referential rather than definitional. Anderson links "product" to "novelty" (relevant in patent law, where what a process produces may determine patentability), to "process" (distinguishing a method of manufacture from its output), and to "residuum" (the remainder after processing). These cross-links reflect how 19th-century commercial law treated product as a downstream concept — defined by what remained after labor or process was applied to raw material.
The pork-packing trade note in Anderson is a useful illustration of a broader principle: the legal meaning of "product" in a given contract or regulatory context may be governed by industry custom, not ordinary dictionary meaning. Courts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries regularly deferred to trade usage when construing what a particular product did or did not include.
Rapalje & Lawrence's treatment is thin, situating "product" within agency law as the output of authorized action — the bill, note, or instrument that an agent's authority permitted to be created. This usage is consistent with negotiable instruments doctrine of the period and is largely obsolete as a standalone definitional concern today.
Neither historical source anticipates or addresses the modern strict products liability framework. Researchers should treat both dictionaries as informative about commercial and transactional usage, not as guides to modern tort doctrine.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The scope of what qualifies as a "product" for strict liability purposes varies significantly by state. Some jurisdictions extend strict liability to software, electricity, and mass-produced residential structures; others confine it to tangible personal property. The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability takes a narrower approach than some state courts. Maritime products liability applies general maritime law rather than state tort regimes, creating an additional layer of variation.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Products Liability — Negligence-Based Products Claims (Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia)
Products Liability — Successor Liability in Products Cases (Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia)
Maritime Products Liability — Applying General Maritime Law to Defective Products (Military, Veterans & Admiralty Law Encyclopedia)
---