Law for Business
1) Anita cannot claim any contract for the injury because the contract ended upon the sale of the item. The accident could have been caused by negligence of Anita, mishandling of the item by the second and the third parties.
There are very many potential litigants of tort than of contract because in tort there is much flexibility compared to contract which tend to be rigid. Furthermore, many wrongs, damages and harm are frequent from tort that attracts litigants unlike in contact (Donnell, Barnes & Metzger 1980).
2) The Consumer Protection Act of 1987 made a provision to the liability of the individual whose products or services caused damage or harm to the customers (Ashcroft et al 1992). This forms the basis of Anita’s claim on the company because she got burnt and her house was partly damaged by the product from the Electra direct company.
3) From the scenario, Charlie can prove Spiro for negligence in many ways. First, Spiro allowed an underage Charlie to board the delivery truck he was using. Under the law, an underage is not believed to make trust worthy decisions and therefore, Spiro was on the wrong. Secondly, it is against the company’s policy and rules that the drivers should not allow unauthorized persons in the company’s trucks. Lastly, as the adult with the underage Charlie, he was responsible for him and therefore, for the child to run aimlessly and be run over by a van shows an act of negligence.
4) The concept of vicarious liability is a kind of secondary and strict liability that comes from the doctrine of agency in the common law. It states that the superior individuals can be liable for the actions done by their subordinates. This means that the third party can be liable to the acts of the violator so long as the third party controls the violator (Fisher & Jennings 1986). This concept can apply to Sparks, the manager of Electra Direct Company because he is the employer of Spiro who has caused damage. As a manager, he controls all his subordinates and therefore, he is liable.
5) According to Watson & Sims (2013), a lease is a contract between the user or the lessee and the lesser or the owner of the property for the user to pay the owner for a particular period of time for a tangible product like rentals. Under the lease agreement, the lessee is entitled to take care of the property for the specified period of time under the contract .|Therefore; the disused property of the Electra Direct Company is under the temporary ownership of the company and should be renovated or taken care of.
However, as Donnell, Barnes & Metzger (1980) suggests, suppose the contract stated that the owner of the property signed the lease to take care of the building, then the company has no legality of renovating or taking care of the building and therefore, in case of any damage, harm or damage, the company has no liability.
Ashcroft et al (1992) advices on the steps the company can adopt to exclude liability of the building,
- If the terms of leasing between the Electra Direct company and the Commercials Landlords Inc stated that the building is under the care and renovation of Electra Direct Company, then they should take steps and prevent any dangers or damages by repairing the building.
- On the other hand if the terms of the leasing contact state that the Commercials Landlords Inc has the responsibility of taking care of their properties under the contract, then, they should be advised to renovate it by Electra Direct Company as a third party and as the user of the property.
- Similarly, Electra Direct Company can seal or protect the building that is in bad condition to prevent the children from accessing it and playing on the dangerous building. This can prevent danger and unnecessary litigations.
According to Fisher & Jennings (1986), Employment Protection Legislation includes all forms of protection measures of employment whether it is based on court rulings, legislations and collective bargaining in employment conditions. It refers to all regulations that are concerned with hiring and dismissal of workers in a company. Watson & Sims (2013) points out that legislation outlines the procedures, pre notification procedures that are mandated and special requirements for the dismissal of a worker.
In reference to the code of practice of ACAS, the legislation has eighteen basic items of which they are condensed in three key areas:
- Regular workers employment protection against dismissal by individuals
- Particular requirements in the cases of collective dismissal
- Forms of temporary employment regulations (Donnell, Barnes & Metzger 1980).
Ashcroft et al (1992), further elaborates that the items are further expressed in the following ways:
- The time units for instance the time frame before a notice can begin or even months of a notice
- As a maximum number of consecutive allowed fixed contracts
- As a score in the ordinal scale of particular items
In reference to Asha, the company’s policies and Allan’s contract states that you cannot dismiss a worker before a six month notice as also elaborated in the time frame of the employment protection legislation. Therefore, Allan cannot be sacked by Asha such easily without violating the policies and also going against the contract of employment of Allan and the company. However, the same company has a policy for immediate dismissal of a worker on an allegation of theft of the property of the company. The disciplinary procedures well outlines conflicts with the contract terms of Allan.
As an advice to Asha, it will be imprudent to sack Allan, a loyal worker of ten years with a clean record as much as he has violated the company’s laws. Therefore, Asha should opt for giving Allan notice of dismissal and allow him to work for the remaining months before officially dismissing him.
- Pat is entitled to the 70% discount on the washing machine because from the avert of the company on the local daily, it stated the first ten people to arrive on Saturday will be given a 70% discount on the goods sold in the store. Therefore, because she was among the first ten, the word of mouth that reconditioned products are not eligible for the 70% is invalid.
- As much as the receipt stated that the seller will not accept any liability on the quality and the condition of the purchased machine on an understanding that its standard is reconditions disqualifies Pat from reclaiming compensation.
- There is minimal remedy for Pat. She can sue the store under the consumer protection act of 1987 or buy another machine
- the document signed by pat disqualified her from making any claim from the store in an event of a defect
- The statutory provisions protect the consumer but not fully. The consumer protection can protect her partly but the receipt signed by Pat disqualifies her. Therefore, she can make a claim depending on the period the item took before becoming defective.
- Under the vicarious liability, the employers have full responsibility of their subordinates and their workers. Therefore, as the linear manager, he has the liability of any damage of the workers under him (Fisher & Jennings 1986).
- Under the safety and health in the workplace, the employer has a liability because he has the duty of ensuring the workers are safe and each has a risk insurance cover. Therefore, any harm that threatens the health and safety of the workers is his responsibility (Watson & Sims 2013).
Donnell, J. D., Barnes, A. J., & Metzger, M. B. (1980), Law for business. Homewood, Ill, R.D. Irwin.
Ashcroft, J. D., Ashcroft, J. E., & Ashcroft, J. D. (1992), Law for business, Cincinnati, Ohio, College Division, South-Western Pub. Co.
Fisher, B. D., & Jennings, M. (1986), Law for business, St. Paul, West Pub. Co.
Watson, S., & Sims, A. (2013), Law for business, Auckland, N.Z., Akoranga Press.