Stanford Engineering, Inc Is Engaging Cornell Code Corporation - Essay Example

Business Law Question Competition is inevitable in business activities. Competition strategies adopted by companies should be fair and within provisions of laws that govern business enterprises and their operations. Such laws do not provide for unhealthy and unfair competition between or among competing firms (Emerson 429). One of the major competition strategies adopted by companies is the use of advertisements. These advertisements are meant to place the advertising company at a favorable position in business compared to its rivals. Advertisements are designed to persuade the consumer by influencing buying choices from one seller to another. Stanford Engineering, Inc. is engaging Cornell Code Corporation in an unhealthy and unfair competition through advertising. Stanford Engineering, Inc. makes a false claim against Cornell Code Corporation through an advertising campaign that seeks to market competitive software products. As a result, Cornell is losing its sales to Stanford based on the false claim against it. Stanford can be held liable in a number of ways for injuring Cornell’s reputation in business. To start with, Cornell clearly understands that Stanford’s claim is untrue, but this has actually affected its sales negatively. Cornell is justified to file a lawsuit against the advertiser, which in this case is Stanford Engineering, Inc. This lawsuit would be set to forbid and restrict Stanford from using Cornell in its advertising activities. Stanford is likely to be asked to refrain from involving Cornell Company in its advertising strategies. On the same note, Stanford would be required to desist from making any reference to Cornell in its line of business and operations. In other words, Cornell can seek to have Stanford prohibited to make any reference to it. This can actually take the notion that Stanford cannot refer to Cornell as its competitor in form of advertising until the underlying dispute is resolved. Another ground upon which Cornell can sue Stanford is demanding of reimbursement of sales lost due to false advertising. Cornell has lost significant sales due to Cornell’s false claims. Cornell can sue Stanford for damages. Stanford’s false advertising has led to loss of sales to Cornell. Fair competition is governed and controlled by provisions of law. Through these laws, Stanford could be made to reimburse Cornell’s losses in sales. Cornell is losing sales to Stanford due to the ruined reputation in the market. Stanford could be sued for defamation. Stanford is tarnishing Cornell’s reputation in a bid to promote its own. Damages incurred by Cornell are not primarily loss of sales to Stanford. Its reputation in the market is ruined, and it would have to reverse the situation in order to reclaim its position. This can be done through suing Stanford for defamation and libel. Suing for defamation and libel however is not opinion-based (Emerson 441). Cornell would be required to outline and provide factual evidence that implicates Stanford. Cornell would therefore be successful in that pursuit since sales’ trends prior to Stanford’s false advertising are depicting negativity. The malicious activity therein would have to be proved. However, it has been observed that Stanford is benefiting at the expense of Cornell. Cornell therefore has sufficient grounds upon which it can sue Stanford. Question 2 There are a number of factors and variables that need to be treated and considered before the link between Dan and Flo is established. It is noted that Dan carelessly forgets to set the parking brake while undertaking his duty to make a delivery. The truck rolls due to Dan’s carelessness. A series of accidents result, and finally Flo is injured. For Flo to recover damages from Dan, she will have to demonstrate that Dan was responsible for the injury that begot her. Flo can recover damages from Dan on the basis of Dan’s negligence. However, Dan is an employee in EZ Delivery Company, and the truck is owned by the company and not Dan. Recovery of damages would require Flo to demonstrate that Dan owned her a duty of care prior to the injuries sustained. As aforementioned, Dan works for EZ Delivery Company, and it is the company that owns the truck involved in injuring Flo. In this regard, Flo must show that it is the EZ Delivery Company that has a duty of care to her through Dan. On the same note, it must be shown that the company has breached this duty through the injuries sustained by Flo. The scope of employment cannot refute the fact that in his delivery operations, Dan was carrying out business activities on behalf of the EZ Delivery Company. Operating the truck therefore is not an exception in this case. Duty of reasonable care seeks to promote and enhance safety and security of parties not involved in the actual activity being undertaken (Emerson 463). This duty was fundamental to uphold during that time Dan parked the truck without setting the parking brake. However, his carelessness led to breach of this duty. Following the series of events that resulted in Flo’s injury, there is no negligence on her side. This is because; the injury was caused by the falling crane after a burned wall collapsed onto the crane. In order to recover damages from Dan, Flo must connect her injury to the breach of duty of reasonable care by Dan. It is in this connection that the liability lies. Flo cannot recover damages from Dan if Dan is not liable for Flo’s injury. The underlying liability must be presented and be backed up by evidence and facts, and not by mere opinion and speculation of events. The fundamental role of the issue of proximate cause in this case cannot be refuted. The issue of foreseeability is the test of proximate cause (Emerson 475). This is the essential connection that would make it possible for Flo to recover damages. From Dan’s carelessness to Flo’s injury, there are a number of events in between. One event led to the other, thereby constituting a chain of events. This chain of events however must have started from a given point. It is already identified that the starting point was the parking lot, where Dan failed to set the truck’s parking brake. This caused the truck to roll, after which all the identified events followed. Flo must show that the relationship between Dan’s carelessness and the chain of events was foreseeable. This is to say that Dan was liable for the end result of his carelessness. He should therefore bear the consequences of his carelessness. Dan’s carelessness at the parking lot depicts a non-refutable account of negligence that consequently leads to a breach of duty of care. It therefore stands that Flo has a claim to make, whether to Dan as an individual or to his employer, EZ Delivery Company. Works Cited Emerson, Robert. Business Law. New York: Barrons Educational Series, 2009. Read More