Laws in the United States - Essay Example

?Introduction In the world of business, several transactions are undertaken by different individuals and stakeholders for the benefit of the organizations. In the process of conducting business, problems abound which require practical solutions to resolve the issues behind these problems. Business laws were introduced to regulate business activities while at the same time to solve disputes associated to undertaking business activities. In the United States of America, several laws have been enacted to regulate business activities, and most these laws are found under the United States Code. This is a system that categorises the different laws enacted into several distinct sections. However, other laws have legal jurisdiction in the United States, but they are not categorized under the United States Code. Some of these laws include the Universal Commercial Code (UCC) and the law of contracts. Scenario Overview The scenario presented by the events leading to the case of Chetum versus Barkley raises a lot of legal issues that need to be investigated. Ian Chetum is a shrewd businessman who awarded a contract to a family firm belonging to Knarles and Barkely. However, the terms of the contract were unclear and thus it created conflict between the interested parties. Ian Chetum has sued Barkely and his company for breach of contract, and this situation needs legal interpretation. There are several laws enacted in the United States of America and this laws deal with civil wrongs, torts or contracts. The sale of goods or service is guided the law of contracts, but in this scenario, we witness several mistakes committed by the stakeholders in the case. For instance, Ian Chetum who owns the building in North Virginia ignored expert advice advanced to him by a plumber who works for Barkely. It is important to note that the firm run by Knarles and Barkely has jurisdiction in three districts of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. As a result, they have the legal right to operate in these regions while the company can conduct business with any business partner or consumer. Laws in the United States There are several laws in the United States of America and most of these laws are enacted the House of Senate. Most of US laws are sourced from the senate while other international laws are recognised in the United States. For instance, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is an international law that has jurisdiction in the US. Other sources of law that is usually relied upon in the courts of law in the United States include law based on precedence. This is whereby court decisions on previous legal matters are used in solving current court cases. Most agreements or contracts are based on the agreements made between two or more parties. A contract has provisions that guide on initiation, performance and termination of the agreement/contract. A contract should be entered through an agreement where an offer is made by one party, and acceptance is done by the other party. For a contract to be legally binding there must be free and genuine consent between the parties. A contract should include provisions that can easily be performed while the provisions should bear meaning. In the United States, the laws of contract and sales are different since these laws are used in different circumstances. For instance, contracts are used in drawing agreements that last long periods of time unlike sales laws that govern on sale of goods. Legal Issues The scenario presented in this case raises several legal issues which surround the job conducted on Ian Chetum’s building. Employees or professional who work on certain jobs have to be certified to conduct these jobs. Knarles’ company employees a plumber who is certified by the District of Columbia and thus, he has jurisdiction to work in Columbia. This raises the legal issue of jurisdiction in that is the same plumber licensed to work in other Districts such as Virginia and Maryland. Another important legal issue that needs to be looked into is if the unintended non-renewal of the plumber’s license by Barkely. The non-renewal of the plumber’s license could jeopardize the Barkely’s case in the sense that Ian could argue that the company’s plumber was not licensed. In the case of the work conducted on Ian Chetum’s building, the owner could sue the plumber for negligence and the in effect Knarles’ company. However, according to the law of torts one has to establish intent or purpose (Carter 97). In the case of Ian Chetum’s, Barkely inadvertence to renew the license of one of the plumbers cannot be classified as a tort since Barkely had no intentional consequence. Another legal issue that can be raised in this scenario is in regards to the law of contracts. A contract is a legally binding document that has can be defined as an agreement enforceable by law. Barkely entered into a contract with Ian Chetum in regard to fixing Chetum’s building. For a contract to be legally binding and enforceable, it must be supported by consideration on both sides. In that, each person must give or promise something in return for consideration must be the price for the promise. Ian Chetum and Barkely drew a contract and in this case, the contract was to be paid when service were done. For a contract to be legally enforceable the parties to the contract must of free and genuine consent. The consent should not be obtained through misrepresentation, fraud, coercion or undue influence. Additional provisions in the law of contracts that could be raised from this scenario include the clauses on the possibility of performance and certainty of meaning. The standard contract agreed upon and signed between Chetum and Barkely should be realistic and terms of the contract should be clearly interpreted. Several issues that relate to breach of contract and liability in the case of torts will be relied upon in this case. Based on the events on this case, we witness that Barkely’s employees fixed the boiler on Chetum’s building after Chetum had agreed to a contract and given a go ahead for the work to progress. For a court of law to pass on a decision, Chetum being the plaintiff will have the burden of proof in this case. In this case, he will have to prove that Barkely breached the contractual terms. In relation to the law of torts, strict liability is held for the defendant in relation to the intention of the crimes committed (Comyn 98). In most cases, if a party is found liable of conducting a wrong that amounts to a tort, the courts of law could rule that party to be jailed or fined. In most instances, torts apply to civil cases and judgement is handed out based on the severity of the case. Defendants in tort cases are liable to bring the plaintiff back to the situation the plaintiff was before the occurrence of the tort. Fines, penalties and compensation awards apply to many tort cases. Legal Remedies The circumstances that led to the case between Chetum and Barkely could be resolved through various means. However, in this case it is important for the courts of law to determine the best solution to this case. In the solution of the Chetum versus Barkely, both parties have to look into the causes of conflict that led to escalation of the case. According to the law of torts, the courts of law usually look into intent as the basis for deciding legal remedies. In the case of Ian Chetum versus Barkely’s company, we witness that Chetum was advised against installing the boiler manufactured by Housewarm since that boiler had already been recalled. Chetum was aware that the boiler installed was not recommended by Barkely’s employee, but he went ahead and instructed Barkely to install the boiler. The tort law clearly states that the intent is satisfied if the defendant desired the consequences of her act. Another provision of the tort law is that intent has to proven through substantial certainty on the defendant’s part. Using this provision, we learn that in the case of Chetum, he was to some extent substantially certain that his acts would cause elements of tort to occur (Carter 63). This is similar to the case of Philips v. Brahms [1954], whereby the court held that the plaintiff was not liable to compensation because of his actions that certainly amounted to tort. If Chetum was to file a suit against Barkley, he might end up losing the case because his actions amounted to a tort according to the law of torts. In the solution of the Chetum versus Barkely case, law of contracts could be used in solving this case. According to the law of contracts, Barkely and his employees were to work on Chetum building by fixing the boiler for a consideration. However, when the boiler failed to work, Chetum refused to honour the terms of the contract and sued for breach of contract. From a legal point of view, it is easy to see that Chetum failed to honour the terms of the contract and that he breached the clause that calls for lawful consideration. Based on this clause, Barkely can file a countersuit against Chetum claiming for compensation based on the work conducted on Chetum’s building. The events in this case are similar to the case of Henderson v. Stevenson [1982], whereby the court held that the plaintiff could not be compensated because he failed to honour contract drawn by the two parties. The courts of law will rule that according to the law of certainty of meaning. Chetum was provided with all the necessary information concerning the faulty boiler. Therefore, Chetum cannot sue for breach of contract since he was fully aware of the terms of the contract. In working on Chetum’s building, Barkely and his employees had no intention of harming the residents who lived in Chetum’s building. According to the law of torts, the plaintiff has the right to proof that the defendant was certain that his/her actions would lead to acts that will cause harm or lead to a tort. In revoking the contract, Knarles could argue that he did not conduct ant tort since he was not aware of the contract between Barkely and Chetum. Moreover, Barkely could also argue that Chetum was fully aware that the boiler to be fixed was faulty. As a result, he is liable to torts undertaken based on the agreed contract. As a result, Barkely could argue that Chetum should be held liable for the costs resulting from the hospitalization of his tenants (Comyn 45). This case is similar to Manning v. Grimsley [1981], where the court held that Manning was liable for the torts conducted while he was undertaking his business even though the tort was as a result of a mistake. The courts in this case could also use precedence in deciding this case in that it look into the character of Chetum and Barkely based on previous court cases. Chetum has been known as being crooked in his business dealing as it has been testified by several people. Based on the circumstances leading to this case, I think Chetum claims cannot prevail if he filed a suit against Chetum. Conclusion Several laws have been enacted for the protection of consumers, producers or interested stakeholders in any case. The case of Barkely and Chetum raises several legal issues that need interpretation according to the different set of laws. The law of torts and contracts according to legal interpretation would be appropriate in the Chetum’s case. The legal issues raised by Chetum although being genuine need to be examined further. Based on the law of torts, we witness that Chetum made several mistakes that amounted to torts and thus, he has no rights to sue for compensation. On the other hand, Barkely conducted the activities of the company in a professional manner. In this case, the courts and legal experts will rely on the laws of torts and contracts to resolve outstanding legal issues. According to the provisions of laws of torts and contracts, Chetum has no legal right to claim for compensation. Works Cited Carter, James, Harland, Dennis and Lindgren, Kimberley, 2005. Contract law in Australia. London: Butterworths. Comyn, Simon. The law of contracts and promises upon various subjects and with particular persons: as settled in the action of assumptions. London: J. Butterworth and Son. Print. Read More