Business Law, Sparkle Solutions, Dalton and Empire Finance - Case Study Example

Business Law, Sparkle Solutions, Dalton and Empire Finance Business Law, Sparkle Solutions, Dalton and Empire Finance Introduction: The objective of this law case study is to appraise and assess Irish legal system in accordance to the corporate case taken under consideration. It should be noted that the paper deals with the case filed against Sparkle Solutions by Empire Finance. A number of legal liabilities are associated with the defender. The case study analysis will be conducted from two dimensions; firstly, the position of Sparkle Solutions and secondly Dalton (person being held as a criminal or charged with burglary attempt. In addition, the courts where the appeals can be submitted will also be assessed and evaluated along with the careful understanding of jurisdiction that handles the case from the claimant’s position. Finally, the paper will also incorporate the amendments that are to be made in the Irish legal system pertaining to the bail system (Quinn 2009). Case under Consideration: It is imperative to understand the case before understanding the necessary bail system amendments as well as liability under which the defender is held. In this case, a contract the finance Empire Company sued a contract cleaning company, Sparkles Solutions because of Sparkle Solutions employee Dalton, who stole a large amount of money from Empire Finance office. Despite that Dalton has been caught by the police due to the criminal charges and has been suspended by the Sparkle Solutions, the Empire Company intends to sue them to recover their financial loss of €25,000 because of the burglary (Ireland, Great Britain 2010). Section A: 1. Liability under Civil Law in the Context of Sparkle Solutions: According to the Irish Laws the Sparkle Solution can be put liable of the following acts, They can be charged with the offence of a theft. They can be charged for the Robbery. They are for sure going to be charged for the crime of Burglary which is already been proved. According to the Irish laws, as offence can be created of obtaining financial advantage of the burglary. They may be offended with the charge of Aggravated Burglary. Sparkle Solutions may be charged of the Removal of articles from the Empire Company through Dalton, their criminal employee. They can be charged for obtaining the property by deception or any means. Sparkle Solutions may be charged of the false accounting in the business or contract. They may be charged for the act of blackmailing as they had sent their employee to the finance company for work and could gain information this way. Moreover, the Sparkle Solutions can b charged for the account of handling stolen goods after the burglary (Leonard & Forde 2013) 2. The Court may take actions on the act of burglary against the Sparkle solutions, such as Sparkle Solutions may be charged for penalty They may be liable on a fine Sparkle Solutions may be liable on imprisonment of about 14 years They may be liable on both, the fine and imprisonment Court may order the owners of the Sparkle Solutions to permanently shut down the contract company. The company may be banned for the rest by the court The company owners may be suspected for the other business they do apart from Sparkle Solution Company. 3. The Court and Jurisdiction to Consider by the Finance Company, The finance company which is the Empire Company in this case can report their complaint against the Sparkle Solutions to the District court, before a judge without a jury. It is suggested because they need their money back and for that they can just file a case against the contract company Sparkles Solution and offend them of their irresponsibility towards their employee or may be about their involvement in the burglary act. The Court and Jurisdiction to Consider by the Contract Company, Offender, The Sparkle Solutions Company can appeal to the Central Criminal Court before the jury as they have taken initiatives on their employee Dalton’s act of burglary by firing him and sending him to the jail for his crime. This way they can defend themselves from the offences of the finance company, before the jury and the judge. 4. The case relevant to be cited by the Empire Company to make their case stronger and suggest the degree of the crime and loss their company had faced. In California, a person named Alan S. Lewis who was 51 was accused of burglary, and grand theft in the sale annuities and he was charged with the $300,000 by 12 clients for the fraud and the burglary issues. The court threw 29 felony charges on him and misdemeanor against him. He spent minimum of four months in jail and paid the fines he was charged with by the court’s order (Unsupported source type (InternetSite) for source Ann14.). Keeping this case the finance company can demand its loss to be recovered and the company offended by it to be punished and made them realize their mistake. Section B: 1. Dalton’s liability under the Irish Law: Under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, section 5 highlights that if a person is found guilty in case of theft of the property of the consent of the owner. Dalton is found guilty for depriving his owner for taking away his property without his consent due to which he is liable to a fine or imprisonment for a period of twelve months or more, the offender is also subjected for imprisonment and fine up to ten years on indictment. Dalton is liable to provide justification for committing theft that he committed were intentional or intentionally done knowing that has not right over the property of client. Hence, the theft can be identified as an act of deception under the Act 2001. It is important to know that if the deception was deliberate, to understand of the theft was established on intentional behaviors (Crime, Punishment and the Search for Order in Ireland 2004). Dalton as an employee of ‘Sparkles’ is also accountable for the damage of reputation of employed organization. As Dalton was an employee of Sparkles and worked for one of the important client of the company due to which he is liable to provide evidence for his act. Dalton is accountable for his intentional act that has damaged the image of employed company and the company Dalton was sent for working on behalf of the company (Professor 2000). However, Dalton cannot claim for legal aid. It is because the Dalton has already found in the theft of sufficient money due to which he is able to pay off his criminal charges. Furthermore, Dalton is not young enough due to which he cannot avail legal aid, incase if he young only in this circumstances his guardians and parents are asked for legal advice. However family circumstances and income of Dalton shall be considered for legal adv 2. Court where the Finance Company can Report: The finance company which is the Empire Company in this case can report their complaint against the Sparkle Solutions to the District court, before a judge without the jury. It is suggested because they need their money back and for that they can just file the case is against the contract company Sparkles Solution and offend them of their irresponsibility towards their employee or may be about their involvement in the burglary act (WILMOT 2010). Court where the Offender Company can Appeal: The Sparkle Solutions Company can appeal to the Central Criminal Court before the jury as they have taken initiatives on their employee Dalton’s act of burglary by firing him and sending him to the jail for his crime. This way they can defend themselves from the offences of the finance company, before the jury and the judge. 3. Evident Acceptance and claim by Dalton: Herein, it is extremely interesting to note that the defender is claiming the evidence against him to be made limited as it was taken by unlawful search of his law. The evidence that have been gathered from the appointed company (Sparkles) and at the working company both show that the thefts from the petty cash are intentional. The act has been proved to be intentional act of Dalton due to which he is compelled to accept the evidences. Moreover, the act of Dalton can be claimed as an intentional act to harm or damage the image of the employed company (sparkles). Under the act 2003, it is evident that the theft of the cash was an intentional act of Dalton that did not depict interest of employed company. Besides of the fact that Dalton has been charged for his, the employed company is found to be guilt due to which Sparkles have been sued. Any of the evidence did not prove that the theft from the petty cash was done in interest of any other person/company. It was merely personal act due to which employed company has also been charged. 5. Amendments in the Bail System: There are only two grounds on which the bail may be refused of a defender by the court, 1. The defender or the accused person will himself not turn up for the trial of bail. 2. The individual offended will not be co-operating and will be interfering with the witnesses. In Irish law, even if there is a chance of the prisoner of committing crime again, he/she would be released on bail but if the above conditions do not apply. For this purpose the amendments are suggested to be made in the Irish law of Bail system to improve it for the sake of preventing more criminal acts and injustice. According to the Irish Laws, the denial of the bail should be made to prevent the defendant from committing more crimes. There should be the concern with the previous records of the prisoner’s behavior on getting bail, if there is any record. The Court should be empowered to deny the bail offer if the prisoner had committed serious crimes, rather than releasing him/her on the bail system the court could offer him the rehabilitative program. Like in Dalton’s case, if he is not a chain burglar he should be considered for the bail and if he is a chain burglar he should be set for the rehabilitative programs. The outdated law should be excluded, and the present law should be refreshed and renewed. The proposal for the amendments is fair and balanced and is based on the European convention related to the Human Rights. It is also in accordance with other countries’ bail laws. It is necessary to prevent a person from committing crime and offence. The amendments needed in the bail law of Ireland are not specifically to reject the bail of any person without considerations, but it is to empower the court to refuse the bail if there is a chance of a crime commitment after getting released on bail. The proposed amendments in the bail system are basically to prevent the society of being in contact with the persistent offenders and provide everyone a system with fair and equal justice. This act would also raise the status of the bail for the accused and would pertain the trust and confidence of the public over the system and Irish law (MacNAlly 2009) The amendments are worth considerations and will act for the betterment of the law and society. The amendments also make the bail law perfect for all the countries to follow and apply in their civil laws. List of References Crime, Punishment and the Search for Order in Ireland 2004, Institute of Public Administration, USA. Ireland, Great Britain 2010, Handbook for justices of the peace in Ireland, under the new summary jurisdiction, petty sessions, and collection of fines and penalties acts, 14 & 15 Victoria: to which is added the new law, under Lord Campbells acts for the better prevention of offen, V. Delany, Canada. Leonard, D & Forde, M 2013, Constitutional Law of Ireland, A&C Black, Canada. MacNally, L 2009, The Justice of the Peace for Ireland: Containing the Authorities and Duties of that Officer, as Also of the Various Conservators of the Peace. with a Digest of the Common and Statute Law. Connected with the Pleas of the Crown, Volume 2 (Google eBook, H. Fitzpatrick, New York. Professor, GP,FC 2000, Rethinking Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, London. Quinn, SE 2009, Criminal Law in Ireland, Sean E. Quinn, USA. WILMOT, SJEE 2010, A digest of the Law of Burglary, The British Library, Canada. . Read More