Managing Legal Relations - Essay Example

Managing Legal Relations Chapter One: Introduction Question One Possible claims open to Stoneyground Bakeries Ltd and against SBL The only possibleclaim Stoneyground Bakeries Ltd. (SBL) may have is against Tyre Heaven. The Driver of the delivery van has a claim against SBL. Tony, a four years old child has a claim against SBL. Tony's mother, Cherie has a claim against SBL. The staffs of SBL have a claim against SBL. The customers of a SBL have a claim against SBL. Individuals who may have claims against Stoneyground Bakeries Ltd (SBL) The driver of the SBL delivery van who suffered injuries after crushing into a wall after the cheap imported tyre's tread came off. The driver suffered injuries while delivering the company's bread. The van driver may sue both the owner of the van (SBL) and the Tyre Heaven for injuries she sustained. She may opt to sue either of them or sue them jointly. The other individual who may have claims against SBL is the staff. The baking company was undertaking cost cutting exercises in their bakery by reviewing of staffing. The staffs were concerned by this move as this would have eventually led to more redundancies and their wanted an assurance that this would not happen at all. This issue had not been addressed by SBL management even after the issue was raised by the staff and this had demoralised the staff. Tony, a four year old child who almost chocked to death on what appeared to be piece of string which had somehow been baked in a loaf and was contained in a slice of bread given to him by his mother. The mother has right of bring a case against SBL concerning the choking of her son. Cherie (Tony's Mother) can also bring a case against SBL for she had experienced trauma after she saw her son Tony being chocked by a string in the slices of bread she had given him. This lead he to being prescribed tranquilisers as she could not cope with as did before her son was choked. Annie, a sales lady who was selling SBL products from a van, door to door can also bring claims against SBL for falling to release her as she wanted to leave the company. She wanted to witch so that she can start selling Barrowmill's bread but she would not be released by SBL unless she paid them compensation for the remaining four months of her contract. The customer can also bring claims against SBL since they were selling inferior products. The customers had started complaining that the quality of bread was deteriorating and that they were selling inferior products. Chapter Two: Discussion Question Two Legal Rules governing the above legal Action On the case where Stoneyground Bakeries Ltd (SBL) is bring an action against Tyre Heaven for selling to them cheap imported tyres that cause injuries to the company's driver a week after they were fitted. The Van driver crushed into a wall after the tyre's tread came off causing him to suffer injuries. This was a clear indication that the tyres were of very low standards hence Tyre Heaven were liable for the injuries caused to the SBL van together with the driver since the van crushed as a result of tread coming of the tyre. When SBL bought the tyres from Tyre Heaven there was an implied condition. A condition is usually a term of greater importance going to the root of the contract. A buyer may waive the condition or may elect to treat the breach of such condition as a breach of warranty, and consequently claim damages instead of repudiating the contract all together. The buyer is bound to treat the breach of condition as a breach of warranty where the contract is not severable and he has accepted the goods, or part thereof or where the contract is for the sale of specific goods, and the property in them has already passed to the buyer. The parties are, however free to contract themselves out of this rule by including a stipulation to that effect in which case the terms of the contract will not be affected by the provisions. For the case of sale of tyres by Tire Heaven, there was an implied condition as to merchantability. A similar condition is imposed on a trader who deals in a particular type pf goods, that when the goods are sold by description, they shall be of merchantable quality meaning, they should be fit for the purpose they are manufactured. This condition may not apply if the buyer had examined the goods and such examination ought to have revealed the defects of which he is now complaining of. But, if such examination by the buyer does not reveal the defects, and the goods turn out to be defective when put into use, the buyer can repudiate the contract and claim damages. 1 For this case, SBL had examined the tyre when they bought them and did not realise any defect in them but after they fitted the tyre in they van, the defective were revealed when the tread came off causing the van to crush into a wall injuring the driver. A relevant case studied is that of:- Morelli v Fitch & Gibson, 1928 Morelli bought a bottle of ginger wine from the defendants' shop. When he was trying to open the bottle, the neck came off and seriously injured his hand. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages as the bottle was not of merchantable quality. 2 On the case where the van driver was injured as result of crushing into a wall after the tyre's tread came off, the van driver may sue SBL company or the Tyre Heaven. This is under the law of tort on the vicarious liability. Vicarious liability is a liability of one person for the torts committed by another person. The wrong doer is, of course liable to the injured person but another person may be jointly liable with him to compensate the injured party. If the injured person chooses to sue one of the tortfeasors, he is subsequently prevented from suing the other even if his claim for damages is not satisfied. So it is advisable for the injured party to sue the tortfeasors jointly. (Penrose, 2005) The concept of vicarious liability is founded on the rule of common sense as employees are usually people of meagre means and it is, therefore, only fair that the injured person is allowed to recover damages from the employers. Thus where the there is a relationship of master and servant, the former is always liable for the torts committed by the latter in the course and scope of his duties. The master or the employer can claim compensation from the negligence employee. (Emerson, 2003) For this case, the van driver can bring a case against both the SBL Company and Tyre Heaven. She should bring a case against SBL for she is employed by the company and the company is liable for the safety of their employees. A case also ought to be brought against Tyre Heaven for injuries caused to him for they had fitted SBL van with new tyres that caused an accident a week after they were fitted. This is a clear indication that the tyre were of very poor quality. Under the sale of goods, there is an implied condition as to merchantability that the products that have been sold are fit for the purpose they are manufactured. The tyre when they were being bought did not reveal any defects but they caused an accident a week after being fitted. 3 On the case where a four years old child (Tony) was almost choked on what appeared to be piece of string which has somehow been baked in a loaf and was contained in a slice of bread given to him by his mother, the mother has a right to sue SBL Company on behalf of her son. The mother when she bought the loaf bread baked by SBL Company knew that the bread could not have something like a string that would make her child to chock. She expected the loaf of bread to be good quality and of standard that are fit for human consumption. Since the bread had a piece of string that had been baked with the bread, it was not fit for human consumption. When the mother bought the loaf of bread from SBL, there was an implied condition as to merchantability. When she bought the loaf of bread, of course she examined it but the physical examination could not have revealed that there was a string that had been baked together with the loaf. Question Three Advice To Individuals Personalities Identified In The Scenario Tony, a four year old child may succeed in the case after suing SBL Company for baking a piece of string with the loaf of bread that made him to almost chock. The likelihood of Tony succeeding in this case is high since he was chocked as he ate a slice of bread given to him by his mother. It is immaterial that there was a warning to this effect on the wrapping of the bread. A statement that the string that made Tony almost to chock was a by product of the milling process is not enough defence on the side of SBL Company. A claim by SBL Company's lawyer that there was a warning on the wrapping of the bread could not be a logical defence. There could have be a warning that there might be strings baked with the loaf but the harm caused by these strings is not fair at all. When one buys a loaf of bread, he is interested with the slices but has no interest with the strings and the harm they can cause to an individual. The strings might be there but the harm they cause is too severe for one to bear. For this case, Tony is entitled for compensation on the damages caused by the slice of bread from SBL Company. There was negligence on the part of SBL Company for baking their bread with pieces of strings that caused choking to Tony. The Company had a duty of care to ensure their supply bread of good quality. A similar case studied is that of:- Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932 A man bought a bottle of ginger-beer from a retail shop for his girlfriend. The Manufacturer had bottled the substance in opaque bottle, so that its content could not be seen. When the girlfriend poured the contents in the glass, it contained the decomposed remains of a snail. The girlfriend was ill in consequence and sued the manufacturer for damages in tort. It was held that the defendant was liable as he owed her duty of care to ensure that the bottle should not contain objectionable matter as it did. 4 There is a high likelihood of Tony succeeding in this case if he proves that SBL Company was negligent. As a general rule, the burden of proving negligence normally lies on the party alleging it, but the courts do not insist on the plaintiff to prove where an accident occurs, which in the normal course of things would not have taken place if the defendant was not negligent. For this case, Tony may argue in such a situation that the rule of 'res ipsa loquitur' applies, i.e. the things speaks for itself, and then the burden lies in the SBL Company to rebut the presumption of negligence by showing that the accident might still have occurred without negligence on his part. Where SBL Company succeeds in proving that he has not been negligent or offer a reasonable explanation of how the accident could have occurred without his negligence, the burden of proof reverts to Tony. Therefore he must prove that the defendant was negligent. There conditions should be met before invoking the rule of 'res ipsa loquitur'. There must be reasonable evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. That the operation is under the control of the defendant, when the accident took place. That the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the duty used proper care. A court may rule that SBL Company pay damages to Tony for choking as a result of a piece of string that was contained in a slice of bread given to him by her mother. 5 A similar case studied is that of:- Bryne v. Boadle, 1863 A barrel of flour fell from a warehouse of the defendant on the plaintiff, injuring him as he walked along the street. The judge held that the plaintiff was not required to show how the accident took place because the facts negligence could be presumed and the rule of 'res ipsa loquitur' applied. 6 Chapter Three: Conclusion Question Four Advice to SBL Company on Legal and Practical Measures One the issue of a warning on the wrapping concerning pieces of strings that are by products of the milling process having been baked accidentally baked with the bread should be written. It would be illogical that for SBL company to place a warning that they are not responsible for liability that are brought about by chocking as a result of pieces of strings baked together with their bread. This warning makes their bread to have low market share. Customers would not purchase any edible that has such a warning which would cause bodily harm. There would go for competitor's breads that do not have such a warning meaning that they are fit for human consumption. In case of a warning that a product would cause bodily harm, should be place on products such as cigarettes as there is no alternative product the consumers can switch. A warning that would be worth being place on SBL Company's bread would be if the wrappings are nylon papers, they would place a warning that the wrapping may cause suffocation to children. On the issue of tyres, SBL Company should not purchase low quality products that are a cheap in the name of cutting costs. There is saying that says that 'cheap is expensive' hence the tyres that were bought from Tyre Heaven were cheap and of low quality and as result caused an accident a week after they were fitted. They should ensure they purchase tyres that are durable and of high quality as this would minimise the accidents. SBL Company must also ensure that next time they purchase tyres; there is guarantee of the period of time the tyre should be used before they were out. One week is very short time for tyres to have worn out thereby causing an accident. On the issue of employment contract SBL Company make with their employees should be drafted such that there a practicable. All employees are supposed to sign employment contracts immediately they are employed to ensure they are not exploited by their employers. This contract is supposed to govern the relationship between the employer and the employees. If there was a proper employment contract, there would not have been an incident like that of Annie who wanted to leave the company. The employment contract besides mentioning the terms of service, they should indicate resignation and termination notice period. On the issue of SBL Company's delivery van accidents, the company should ensure that their vehicles and workers are insured. Accidents are inevitable and one cannot be certain when they would happen so as to avoid them. For this case, they should ensure they have an insurance policy against accidents. They should also minimise the number of accidents by ensuring that their drivers obey driving rules and regulations. SBL Company should ensure they negotiate with their employees' trade union on any staff reviewing to ensure there is always good working relationship. References Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. Journal of Political Bohnet, I., S. Huck and B. S. Frey (1999): More Order With Less Law: On Contract Enforcement and Crowding. Mimeo. Kennedy School of Law. Harvard University Bayles, M. D. (1990): Procedural Justice. Allocating to Individual, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publisher Dhanrajlal, M and Ratanlal, N, (1999): Code of Criminal Procedures, 12th Edn New Delhi, Wadhwa Emanuel, S. L, (2004): Fundamental of Business Law, 4th Edn, Sydney, Educational Publisher Emerson R. W. (2003): Business Law, 5th, Sydney, Educational Publisher Fehr, E., S. Gchter and G. Kirchsteiger (1997). Reciprocity as a Contract Enforcement Device. Econometrica 65: 833-860. Jertz, A, Miller L. R, (2004), Fundamentals of Business Law, 3rd Edn, London, Macmillan Publisher Hussain, A, (1993), General Principles and Commercial Law, 1st Edn, Nairobi, East Africa Educational Publishers Langhan, A. S, (1999), Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes 12th Edn, New Delhi, Gopas Publishers Kronman, A.T (1985); Contract Law and the State of Nature, Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, Vol. 1, No. 1 (spring, 1985), pp. 5-32 Ogola, J. J, (1999), Business Law, 1st Edn, Nairobi, Focus Publications ltd Penrose, R. (2005): Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, Sydney, Longman Publisher Saleemi, N. A, (1992), Elements of Law, 2nd Edn, N.A, Nairobi, Saleemi Publishers Rogerson, W. P. (1984); Efficient Reliance and Damage Measures for Breach of Contract, Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 15, No. 1 (spring, 1984), pp. 39-53 Rousseau, D. M. (1995): Psychological Contracts in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Schwartz, R. D. and S. Orleans (1967). On Legal Sanctions. University of Chicago Law Review 34: 282-300. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why People Obey the Law. Hew Haven: Yale Read More