Legal Environment of Business and Business Ethics - Assignment Example

Legal Environment of Business and Business Ethics Name Grade Course Tutor’s Name Date: 1. Legal Brief Facts: El. Hajji Mohammed suffered significant physical injuries when a washing machine he had bought from E&Z electronic in Dubai malfunctioned due to a faulty electrical switch. The accident also occasioned property damages to Mohamed. E&Z electronics distributes and resells L&G products in Dubai, and based on the foregoing, Mohammed is suing both E&Z electronics and L&G products. When purchasing the washing machine, Mohammed, like any seller would, had expectations about the quality of the equipment. Such expectations form the basis of an implied warranty in that Mohammed expected to use the washing machine to launder his clothes once he got home without any problems. Since the seller did not indicate that the machine was faulty in any way, Mohammed expected that it was indeed fit for use immediately. Additionally, the affirmation by the seller that the washing machine was new and in good working condition constituted an express warranty. Both the manufacturer and reseller were negligent for having placed a defective washing machine in the hands of Mohammed (the consumer). The faulty electrical switch was evidently a manufacturing defect, which does not conform to the manufacturer’s own specifications about the washing machine’s safety. Had the manufacturer or the distributor/reseller tested the product before selling it to Mohammed, chances are they would have detected the fault and as such, would have avoided selling it to an unsuspecting customer. It is therefore clear that both the manufacturer and the distributor/reseller were negligent. To compensate Mohammed for the physical injuries he suffered, and the property destruction that was occasioned by the electrical malfunction of the washing machine, he (Mohammed) is seeking damages amounting 25 million Dirham. The damages will not only cover the immediate cost of replacing the washing machine, repairing and/or replacing other products that got damaged when the washing machine malfunctioned, and compensating Mohamed for the physical pain and injuries he suffered, it will also serve as a deterrent to manufacturers and resellers who are not careful about the quality of products they sell consumers in future. 2. Counterarguments by the lawyer for L&G electronics and E&Z electronics L&G electronics and E&Z electronics have not received any other complaint regarding any other machine of similar make. The absence of another defective machine could only mean that the manufacturer had played their role in ensuring that the machine was safe for use. In U.S v. Carroll Towing, it was argued that a defendant is negligent if the burden of prevention is smaller than the probability and injury. Considering that the washing machine bought by Mohammed was an isolated case that had a defective electrical switch, the probability that both the manufacturer and the reseller would have predicted such a fault is almost negligible. While it is true that an accident occurred, the court should not only examine the costs and losses occasioned by the accident; rather, the court should consider that no other machine of a similar make has encountered similar problems. Secondly, and considering the counter-argument above against the negligence allegations above, the compensation claims made by the appellant are tantamount to unjust enrichment on his part. The court needs to consider that the damages occasioned on his person were not life threatening and if proof was provided, his medical expenses are nowhere near the quoted amount. Secondly, the costs of the damaged property, again if proofs were provided are trivial compared to the compensation amount that he has quoted. Finally, the argument that the amount quoted will have a deterrent effect on manufacturers and encourage them to be more careful when placing their product in the market is at best misleading. Neither L&G electronics nor E&Z electronics has a record of producing or selling faulty products to the consumer market. 3. Judgement Mohammed v. L&G electronics/ E&Z electronics In this case, the plaintiff alleges that the washing machine he bought from E&Z electronics had a defective electric switch, which occasioned bodily harm and property losses on him upon use. The defendant argues that both the manufacturer and reseller of the washing machine were negligent by placing a defective machine in his hands. The plaintiff further argues that the implied and express warranties were breached by the reseller because the machine did not work as implied when he first bought it. In counterarguments, the defendant argues that the manufacturer and the reseller would not have predicted a defect would occur, considering that the washing machine bought by Mohammed was an isolated case of electric switch defect. The defendant further argues that the compensatory damages sought by the plaintiff are tantamount to unjust enrichment seeing that neither the plaintiff’s medical bills nor the costs of properties damage are equal (or near) the amount sought by the plaintiff. Owing to the absence of records showing that they produce or sell faulty products, the defendants argue that the proposition that huge compensatory damages would have a deterrent effect is misleading. Negligence claims From the facts of the case, it is this court’s opinion that individuals who suffer harm occasioned by unsafe products can seek remedies form the designers, manufacturers, and/or sellers of those products. Such is the essence of consumer protection law. In this court’s understanding, negligence is absence of ordinary, reasonable or proper care by a person who has a legal obligation to do something, which he/she does not do. In this case, the manufacturer (L&G electronics) had a responsibility to ensure that the washing machine was tested at every stage of production and its quality ascertained. The resellers (E&Z electronics) had a responsibility to ensure the washing machine was in good working order before selling it to the defendant. A simple test would have ensured this. Since the two defendants did not do what they reasonably should have done, their argument that they would not have reasonably predicted the machine would cause harm and injury to the plaintiff is hereby invalidated. Express and implied warranties This court also finds that E&Z electronics is guilty of breaching express and implied warranties because the promises, claims and representations it made to the defendant concerning the quality of the washing machine were not true. Additionally, it is this court’s opinion that the standard of reasonable safety as indicated in Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-315 as noted in Legal Information Institute (n.d) was not met. Conclusion In view of the foregoing, the plaintiff’s requests are granted. The court finds that the plaintiff requests are justified considering that he has not only suffered bodily harm, but has suffered losses to his property. A need to deter manufacturers and resellers from releasing defective products into the market has also motivated this court’s granting of the compensatory amount sought by the plaintiff. The defendants have a month from today to appeal this court’s decision. The court so orders. References Legal Information Institute n.d., ‘§ 2-315. Implied warranty: fitness for particular purpose’, Cornell University Law School, viewed 14 May 2014, < http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-315>. U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169, 174 (2nd circuit 1974). Read More