The Claim Open to SBL - Essay Example

An essay for the subject "Managing Legal Relationships" Question 1: Identify possible claim open to SBL, and also identify the individuals in the case who you feel may have claim against SBL. List all the possible Legal Action each party may have. Answer: The case provides a background of how the company SBL is trying to deal with the pressure of competition. It has changed its operations at various levels and how this impacts the stakeholders of the company mainly customers and employees and gains attention of community through media. The claims open to Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) are as follows: Claim 1: Ms. Cherie and Master Tony vs. Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) Claim 2: Injured Van Driver vs. Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) Claim 3: Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) vs. Tyre Heaven Claim 4: Annie vs. Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL Claim 1: Ms. Cherie and Master Tony vs. Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) Claimant: Ms. Cherie and Master Tony Master Tony was choked almost to death by the piece of spring which was baked with the bread. The child somehow was able to dislodge the offending material from his throat. Child has suffered by the product provided by the company which is considered to be safe. Not only this, it has caused a great trauma to his mother Ms. Cherie to see her child in the condition like that. As stated by Hodge (2004) “A person who is injured in some way by defective goods which that person has brought will have substantial protection under the law of contract, particularly under the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.” Ms. Cherie and Master Tony over the product quality and safety under Sale of Goods Act 1979 which clearly states that:1 (2B) for the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—  (a) Fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,  (b) Appearance and finish,  (c) Freedom from minor defects,  (d) Safety, and  (e) Durability. The company is needs to be socially responsible. It can face product liability lawsuit. For a product like bread which is being consumed by all the sections of society from a child to an old age people and from those who are not decision makers for themselves company cannot simply ignore the safety and care which should be taken care of while preparing the product. If there are chances of by-product which can be harmful proper measures should be taken timely. The term ‘By-product’ is being used here for the piece of string. By-product of any product manufacturing process is a production residue with economic value and which is produced by the raw materials used in the production of main product. The term by-product is being wrongly used here. Company is liable to pay compensation to Ms. Cherie and Master Tony for the sufferings they had. Claim 2: Injured Van Driver vs. Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) Claimant: Injured Van Driver It was the decision of the company to go for cheap tyres which had been not fitted well by the tyre providing company. This resulted in accident of the Van driver. She crashed with the wall and suffered injuries. It is the responsibility of the company to provide safe working conditions to all its employees. Any decision which results in tragedy like this the company is responsible for it. Hence in this case the second claim open to SBL is of Delivery Van driver who had been injured due to the bad quality tyres used by its company. On the basis of same reason the other Van driver can leave the company without paying compensation to them as the contract will be null and void if company is not able to provide safe and secure working conditions. This will come under The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Provision of work equipment 1998 (PUWER) and Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 19992. According to Handley et al (1996): “Employees have a contract of employment with their employer. the most important terms of this contract have to be contained in a written statement of terms required by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 IN addition some terms may be implied by the courts Employers are vicariously liable for the torts committed by their employees during the course of employment.” Claim 3: Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) vs. Tyre Heaven Claimant: Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) can claim Tyre Heaven for their poor service and the problems faced by SBL due to that. Under the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 it can claim for compensation if it is able to prove Tyre Heaven guilty for not fitting the tyres properly. It will require technical analysis and help of technical investigations to find out the real cause of the thread coming out of the tyre which lead to an accident. As par the facts given in the case the tyre was not properly fitted and this led to the accident of the Van driver. Employees of the organisation have suffered with injuries. It also created a mistrust and bad name as an employer for SBL. SBL can claim for the harm of its reputation and injuries its employee suffered due to the carelessness in the service by Tyre Heaven. Claim 4: Annie vs. Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) Claimant: Annie Annie wants to switch her job and leave the company. Annie sells company’s products from a van door to door. The company has refused to release her from the remaining four months contract unless she pays compensation to the company. Now Annie can claim her right to leave the company on the basis of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which clearly states that with a notice prior to leaving the job and informing company specified weeks/month in advance the employee can terminate her contract. As in the case it is not provided that from how long Annie has been working for the company. The notice period depends on the period for which Annie has worked in the company. This can be a weak case but Annie can claim for leaving the contract as the company is doing staff cuts and not providing any action to assure for remaining staff. Question 2: Taking the possible actions listed in (1); explain the legal rules governing each of them. You should quote appropriate legal references to support your arguments. Answer The claims listed in the Question 1 are listed below. But before making any claim, the claimant needs to understand his/her responsibility towards having right claim. Each case will consume energy, resources and time of people associated with it. Any wrong claim will cost wastage of these resources and the claimant will be responsible for that. 1. Claim 1: Ms. Cherie and Master Tony vs. Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) Claimant: Ms. Cherie and Master Tony The chances of winning of Ms. Cherie and Master Tony are very much in the case. The case will fall under many acts. The first act is Sale of Goods Act 1979 in which it is clearly written that the food should be safe. The product delivered to the claimant was not safe. The common prudence which the company needed to take care of it did not. It is natural that anyone eating a loaf of bread will use his/her teeth and tongue to eat and will swallow by his/her throat. In any circumstances anything in this product which hinders this process where it is result lack of responsibility of producer means company will be responsible for that. There are other things as well which fall under the common prudence. First is that a person will not read each and everything on the label of any product. The second thing is that any harmful thing as a food product can not be sold by putting a label on it which states precaution or warning. If one buys any food product the first understood thing will be that the food presented is safe for consumption. Company failed in this general requirement of the safety of the food which has been included in the Sales of Good Act 1979. 2. Claim 2: Van Driver vs. Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) Claimant: Injured Van Driver It is responsibility of any organisation to provide safe and secure work environment and working conditions for its employees. It includes that the employee is provided with safe and fit equipments and machineries as per the job requirement. This will come under The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Provision of work equipment 1998 (PUWER) and Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, mechanical faults are estimated to be a factor in 5.5% of all vehicle accidents. The Vehicle Inspectorate issued 3700 (32%) of 11700 inspected light goods vehicles with prohibition notices due to mechanical defects. The proportion of heavy goods vehicles inspected issued with prohibitions was lower at 21%.3 Each of the law under different circumstances covers the working condition requirement which SBL have failed to meet. In order to cut costs it purchased cheap tyres. This decision led to the accident of the van driver. The injuries caused to her were result of failure of Safety of Work Act 1974 by the company, where company did not abide by the act. Smith & Knight (2005) found in their analysis of STATS 19 van accident data that in 22% of all defective vans involved in accidents, these defects had contributed to the accident. Most frequent were contributory tyre defects, which were due to a lack of maintenance. Other defects included structural defects, faulty maintenance and brake defects. The data showed that defects were not so much associated with vehicle age, but rather with negligence of maintenance.4 3. Claim 3: Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) vs. Tyre Heaven Claimant: Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) SBL can fight this case on the basis of Goods Act 1979 and under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. In this case as the facts provided the tyres has been of cheaper quality. But the problem was with the fitting of the tyres. As a company it is responsibility of Tyre Heaven to fit the tyres in a safe manner and properly. If the SBL is able to prove that the fitting of tyre was a problem than chances of winning the case for SBL will be high. In such case it will also impact the decisions of the other case of Van Driver. 4. Claim 4: Annie vs. Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) Claimant: Annie This case can be brought under Employment Rights Act 1996. There are various conditions given in the Chapter 18 of the same Act for work contract terms and conditions.5 The chances of winning for Annie will depend on how case is presented and argued. Annie and her advocate need to do lots of ground work in order to win the case. The facts presented in the case are not complete. It requires additional information on the terms of contracts to clearly form a strategy on the case. But in any case Annie will be eligible to leave the job with specified weeks of notice. Company can not force her to pay compensation for leaving if she has given adequate time of notice as specified in the contract. On the other hand Annie’s advocate can look for other arguments as well. The company cost cutting has impacted the product quality as evident in the case. For an employee, especially a door to door seller who is interacting with the consumers many times in a day becomes face of the company. She is held responsible for any quality failure or problem with the product on the first instance. Customers will complaint to her regarding the quality of product. In such case inferior quality product leads to embarrassment for the employee representing the company. Annie and her advocate can collect the evidence and feedback from the customers regarding the quality of the product. If they are able to prove that the company is selling inferior quality of product at the same price as compared to the product sold earlier at the same price without communicating the same to the consumers and employees, she can be compensated and leave her job. Question 3: With regard to individual personalities identified in the scenario, taking all the circumstances into account, fully advise them of the most appropriate course of action open to each of them and the likelihood of success. 1. Claim 1: Ms. Cherie and Master Tony vs. Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) Claimant: Ms. Cherie and Master Tony The most appropriate course of action will be filing a case against Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. Company is responsible for the safety of products it is selling and there are major chances to win for Ms. Cherie and Master Tony. If the facts shown are accepted by the opposite party than every statutory right prescribed is available to Ms. Cherie and Master Tony and if no statutory right is prescribed than whatever can be give by the common will be decided. If the facts are disputed both parties have to lead their evidences and the results will depend on the facts proved. If no one is able to prove anything than benefit of doubt will go to the opposite party. Whoever makes imputations has to prove has case and if he fails not only the claims fail but also the statutory damages and cost may also be awarded against him/her. 2. Claim 2: Van Driver vs. Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) Claimant: Injured Van Driver The chances of winning for Van Driver are good. She should claim for compensation for herself, injuries during duty and negligence of company to provide safe and appropriate working conditions. If the facts shown are accepted by the opposite party than every statutory right prescribed is available to Van Driver and if no statutory right is prescribed than whatever can be give by the common will be decided. If the facts are disputed both parties have to lead their evidences and the results will depend on the facts proved. If the opposite party contradicts the claims of Van Driver and is able to prove her wrong than Van Driver’s claim fails and she has to abide by the contract of service or provisions of service. If no one is able to prove anything than benefit of doubt will go to the opposite party. Whoever makes imputations has to prove has case and if he fails not only the claims fail but also the statutory damages and cost may also be awarded against him/her. 3. Claim 3: Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) vs. Tyre Heaven Claimant: Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) Chances of winning for Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) depend on how well the facts are presented and imputations are proved. The crucial thing is to prove that tyre had not been fitted well. This is mentioned in the facts presented in the case as well as the denial of the Tyre Heaven which claims no problem with the fitting of tyres. 4. Claim 4: Annie vs. Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) Claimant: Annie The chances for Annie to win the case are moderate. All the possibilities are given below: If the facts shown are accepted by the opposite party than every statutory right prescribed is available to Annie and if no statutory right is prescribed than whatever can be give by the common will be decided. If the facts are disputed both parties have to lead their evidences and the results will depend on the facts proved. If the opposite party contradicts the claims of Annie and is able to prove her wrong than Annie’s claim fails and she has to abide by the contract of service or provisions of service. If no one is able to prove anything than benefit of doubt will go to the opposite party. Whoever makes imputations has to prove has case and if he fails not only the claims fail but also the statutory damages and cost may also be awarded against him/her. Question 4: Advice SBL of both the legal and practical measures they can undertake to ensure the possibility if future incidences of the type identified are minimised There are various Acts which have been discussed for the claims open in the case like Sale of Goods Act 1979, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Provision of work equipment 1998 (PUWER) and Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and Employment Rights Act 1996. In all the above mentioned claims the case of Ms. Cherie and Master Tony vs. Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) is strong. Strong reasoning can be presented on the basis of the legal frameworks i.e. which makes the case strong for the claimant. SBL needs to have a proper quality management system. Legally it would be better for SBL to compensate the claimant. The best way to resolve these issues is to follow common prudence and abide by law. The company need to have better policies and regulations in order to keep the employees motivated. The cost cutting should not be in such a way that it tempers the product quality or reduces it. The company need to look for different vendors which can provide quality ingredients or raw materials for the products. For the cases like Stoneyground Bakery Ltd. (SBL) vs. Tyre Heaven where the decision have made by the SBL to go for different vendors or made purchase decisions for the production or product process, it need to be more concerned. Reference Consumer Protection and the Criminal Law: Law, Theory, and Policy in the UK. Contributors: Peter Cartwright - author. Publisher: Cambridge University Press. Place of Publication: Cambridge, England. Publication Year: 1999. Dabydeen, S. R, (2004) Legal and Regulatory Framework, For Business in UK, iUniverse Inc. Lincoln UK Dransfield, H (2003) Understanding Business: Business Law Made Easy, Nelson Thomas Ltd: Cheltenham, UK Hodge, S (2004) Tort Law, Willan Publishing, Cullompton: Devon UK Handley, P., Clevenger J, Vaughan, J, Birtwistle Y. O’Neill, T and Wall S, (1996) Business Law: An Active Learning Approach, Open Learning Foundation Enterprises Ltd, Blackwell Publishers Ltd: Oxford UK Employment Rights Act 1996, Chapter 18, 1996 PART IX , TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT Minimum period of notice retrieved on 5th November 2006 from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/96018--k.htm#86 Employment Policy & Legislation, Employment Guidance, Contracts of employment: changes, breach of contract and deductions from wages, URN No: 06/532 retrieved on 5th November 2006 from http://www.dti.gov.uk/employment/employment-legislation/employment-guidance/page16161.html Keenan, (2003) Smith and Keenan’s Law for Business, Longman: UK Lang & L Rehm (2006) Literature Review, On Van Use In The UK retrieved on 26 October 2006 from http://www.aatrust.com/files/safer_vans/Literature_Review_Van_Use_UK.pdf Maycock, G., Lockwood, C.R. and Lester, J.F. (1991) The accident liability of car drivers, Deprtament of Transport, TRRL RR315, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (2003) Seat belt factsheet – 20th anniversary of compulsory front seat belt wearing www.pacts.org.uk/policy/briefing/seatbeltfactsheet.htm Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 (c. 35) retrieved on 26 October 2006 from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_19940035_en_2.htm#mdiv1 Smith, T. & Knight, I. (2005) Analysis of Accidents Involving Light Commercial Vehicles in the UK, 19th International Technical Conference of the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Washington D.C., 2005 Simpson, A. W. B (1987) A History of the Common Law of Contract: The Rise of the Action of Assumpsit, Oxford University Press: Oxford, England. Read More