Business Law: The Between Knarles and Ian Chetum - Case Study Example

Business Law Case Study The blow up of the case between Knarles’ and Ian Chetum gives rise to very many legal issues. To begin with, let us look at the issues that arise between Chetum V. Knarles. The issue at hand between the two is defamation. Under the rule of common law, to charge a person of defamation, there must be a false statement of a given fact, that concerns a plaintiff or about a plaintiff[Def24]. The fact or the false comment has to be issued to a different third party; and must have caused damages in order to be a valid assertion in court. In addition to this view, in a case where the defamation involves a very public person and or is a matter of public concern, the plaintiff, as the complainant in the case, has to provide or give proof in the court of law that the claims or comments made by the defendant are false, and also that the defendant has either known of the truth of the claim and has simply acted recklessly and disregarded the truth out of pure malice towards the complainant or plaintiff. The statements that Knarles has made to his friends and colleagues are by all means just personal opinions, rather than facts; they are far from facts. If this is the case, then by all means, there is no case of defamation at all[Def24]. If Knarles was not simply stating his opinions about the person – the plaintiff who is Ian Chetum, then in that case his statements and comments could be considered as defamatory in nature. This is because in as much as his statements and comments could have been simple, fair comments to an issue that is of public interest and concern, Knarles had no proof of any kind that his statements were or are the truth. Therefore, as such, Knarles’ statements were made in high disregard of what is the truth, and this is utter recklessness. Consequently, Knarles can be sued for defamation by Ian Chetum. Chetum v. Stucko The next legal issue arises between Ian Chetum and Stucko. The legal issue at hand is still defamation. Just as, stated above, a case of defamation has to be backed by proof that a false statement of a fact has been made about the complainant, and have been made by a third party and caused damage to be liable in court[Def24]. The statements made by Stucko are obviously factual. If we assume that he made the statements with knowledge that he was falsifying them or blatantly disregarding the truth, then in that case he would be very liable to be charged for defamation. Nonetheless, the truth is often used as a defense for defamation claim – therefore, if the claims and statements are the truth, then Stucko has no case to answer on the grounds of defamation. The Residents v. Chetum This is the next case that the business conflict has brought up. The legal issue at hand is that of Battery. The rule of common law on Battery is that it is the intentional and or offensive act of touching of a third party without their privilege or consent to any way[Bat04]. When the building owner Ian Chetum tells the plumber from Knarles and Barkley’s company to ‘fix it’, – when referring to the broken boiler, and at the same time knowing that the broken boiler is highly defective, and the manufacturer had recalled their product, Ian Chetum, as the owner of the building is intentionally engaging in a harmful ‘touching’ of all of the residents of his building[Bat04]. Therefore, Ian Chetum has a case to answer on the grounds of battery. Another issue that is brought up between the residents and Chetum is that of the breach of the covenant of the quiet enjoyment of the tenants of Ian Chetum’s building. Under the rule, of common law, when a breach of the quiet enjoyment takes place, the landlord has, in one way or another has failed or acted in a way that does not secure or make it safe for tenants and residents of his building to have the quiet enjoyment that they should have whenever they are living under the roof of the landlord’s building; their tenancy is not as rosy as they thought it would be[Han30]. Any resident in tenancy has the right, under the agreement of their lease, to have the quiet enjoyment of the tenancy they have paid for in any building. The failure by Chetum of not replacing the broken boiler is a breach of contract. He acted while having the knowledge of the defects that it has is a very clear breach of the contract and agreement between the tenants and the landlord under the laws of the land. Effectively, Chetum is very much in breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and has to face charges in court. The other issue that arises between the residents of Chetum’s building and the man himself Chetum is that of the breach of the implied contract of good faith. In common law, it is stated that the breach of implied covenant of good faith arises when a contracting party or individual acts or has acted in a way that prevents the other person or party from getting all the benefits that had been bargained for in the contract that they had. The breach of the contract sounds in an unlawful act when the party that breaches the contract had a special responsibility and duty to take care of and did not fulfill[Boo56]. Under the modern law of tenancy, there are contracts between the tenants of buildings and their landlords. Among these contracts is that Chetum should provide adequate heating to the tenants or residents. Chetum failed to do this; his failure to do that, and instead opting to repair a dangerously defective boiler, prevented the tenants from the enjoyment of the benefits that their lease provides them. Effectively, this is a breach of the agreement of good faith. The Residents v. Housewarm Company The issue brought about between the residents, and the Housewarm Company is strict product liability. From the view, of the case between Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963), the law of the Strict Product liability was established by the supreme court of California[Gre63]. This occurs when a complainant has been injured by a product that is faulty or defective in its design, warning, and its manufacture, when it is used in the proper foreseeable manner. Housewarm Company knows very well their product, the boiler, is faulty, defective, and, therefore, is extremely dangerous; given the fact that it is venting carbon monoxide, – which is a, known poison when it finds its way into the human body. A person exposed to carbon monoxide can die if it happens in an enclosed space; for instance in an apartment. It is the responsibility of Housewarm company to ensure that a personnel is sent out to go and check out the broken products it has manufactured; this is very important because the boilers it manufactures can cause death in the property they are installed into, and this is a liability to their business name, and operations in case a scandal arises. Given the circumstances surrounding the defective boiler, nothing could be done other than having the boiler replaced by a new one from the manufacturer. Simply recalling the product does not guarantee the safety of the residents of the building. The boiler is the product of their failure to design and manufacturing process. As a result, any injuries that the residents sustain are on the company. Chetum v. Facilities Company (FC) The issue between Chetum and the Facilities Company is breach of contract. Under the rule, of common law, a contract is breached or not honored when the promise of the agreement is substantially violated and results to the damage of the other party to the agreement. The Facilities Company has not breached the express contract it has with Chetum for the sole reason that the contract they have is voidable. Nonetheless, the company is bound by the terms to Chetum on the basis of the implied agreement agency as will be explained later on in this paper. The other issue is that of formation. The law requires that when a contract is formed, an offer; as the manifestation of the present intent of the contract that has definite and clear terms must be communicated to the other party of the contract, an acceptance; undeniable assent towards the terms that are under the offer, and lastly, a consideration; which is the legal detriment that is assumed in give-and-take for the benefit that is provided by the offer. Barkley has evidently and clearly shown a current contractual intention by sending Chetum a signed written offer on contract to him; the contract offer contains very definite clear cut and certain terms that explain the conditions of the services they will be offering him as a company. Ian Chetum duly put his signature on the contract; showing that he agreed to the terms and accepted the conditions that were stated and implied by the contract. He went ahead and returned a check to Barkley within the specified period for the bills of the first month. By all means, they have a contract. The next issue to be handled is that of defense and incapacity on the part of Barkley. Under the rule of common law, a minor is allowed to disaffirm or void a contract that has been made in the period of minority except for the necessaries such as shelter, food, healthcare and clothing[Str31]. Barkley is very young; he is just 17 years old. That said, by law, he cannot be held liable for any contract or business deal he enters into on behalf of his company for the sole reason that the deal, or the product is not viewed as a ‘necessary’ that is intended for Barkley[Str31]. However, it is not clearly stated in the facts that Barkley went ahead to support his father’s intent of pulling out of the business contract he entered into with Chetum. However, if we assume that he supported his father on that account, then it can be said that he duly disaffirmed the contract he had with Ian Chetum. As a result, the deal the company had with Ian Chetum is not existent at all; and has no future at all. The next issue is that of Actual Agency Contract. The law explains the law of agency as implied when the behavior of the parties of the contract shows that there is an intention for them to be bound to a covenant for the other person to act on behalf of the other person bound by the contract. The plumber made contact with Barkley as his available, immediate boss and gave the description of the issue that he was facing. He gave Barkley the best professional advice he had concerning the problems broken boiler would course to the property. Barkley then went ahead and relayed the information to the building’s owner, Ian Chetum. Chetum then went ahead and instructed the plumber to ‘fix it’; referring to the broken, defective boiler. In this regard, Mr. Chetum and the plumber have entered into some form of an actual agency agreement even though it is implied and not direct. The plumber is effectively bound to use his skills and best efforts in resolving the problems the boiler has. Hence, the actual agency agreement or contract has been effectively formed. The other issue is Respondeat Superior. This means that, as defined by common law rules, any employer is held responsible for the actions or omissions that an employee does or has done surrounded by the scope of work. The Plumber is Facilities Company’s employee. Duly stated, the fact that he enters into the agreement with Ian Chetum to repair the boiler within the employment scope only servers to leave Facilities Company to be liable for his acts and all omissions. Hence, despite the fact the express written contract may be invalid, the company and Chetum are still bound by the contract that concerns the repair of the broken boiler. Chetum v. the Facilities Company Professional negligence is the legal issue here. Common law rules define professional negligence as the event that follows a person having an agency duty to a certain principal, does not honor the stated duty and is the proximate and actual cause of the injuries of the principal. The plumber is a professional who has duties to honor to his clients, even though he has an expired license. The fact that he did not fix the boiler to stop emitting carbon monoxide, or to pull out of the contract and withdraw from the agreement with Chetum, verily is a violation of his duties of loyalty and fiduciary to act a way that guarantees the wellbeing of his principal[Pro88]. In light of this, the plumber can be charged for professional negligence by Chetum. The other issue that arises is that the plumber got into an agreement at the time when he was an employee who still answered to FC; Hence, he is very liable for charges of professional negligence to the owner of the building; Chetum. References Def24: , (Defamation. Ewell v. Boutwell, 1924), Bat04: , (Battery. Cavuoto v. Buchanan, 2004), Han30: , (Hannan v. Dusch: Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, 1930), Boo56: , (Bookman v. Cavalier Court: Breach of Covenant of Good Faith, 1956), Gre63: , (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products: Strict Product Liability, 1963), Str31: , (Strother v. Lynchburg Trust and Savings Bank: Defense - Incapacity, 1931), Pro88: , (Professional Negligence. Sensenbrenner v. Rust, Orling & Neale, 1988), Read More