Business law - Essay Example

The case against Beatrice was dismissed because there is no concrete evidence: the river between the Beatrice’s Tannery and the contaminated wells is tested by the company’s chemist and discovered that no pollution occurred. This above-mentioned case would receive serious attention under the UK legal jurisdiction because it is recognized as serious, principal pollution offences. This is indicated in the UK Water Resources Act 1991, which clearly states in Section 85, sub-section 1that: “A person contravenes this section if he causes or knowingly permits any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter to enter any controlled waters” (Office of Public Sector Information, UK).

Explaining the section of the law above, “any controlled waters” include the water passed from one source to the other in a pipe or other tightly enclosed containers like wells. And examples of this include towns (public) water and industrial water that is connected to a factory from ground sources or otherwise. This UK law frowns at anyone or a corporate entity polluting these controlled waters by ways of “knowingly” adding poisons (in case of Beatrice’s Tannery, Trichloroethylene above), unpleasant or polluting matters like sludge, chemicals (Grace, the chemical company in the movie) and oil or any solid waste matter like excrement and animal dungs to the waters.

So, what does the UK laws say about punishing the culprits who have knowingly polluted controlled waters? The Water Resources Act 1991 section 85, sub-section 6b states that: “Subject to the following provisions of this Chapter, a person who contravenes this section or the conditions of any consent given under this Chapter for the purposes of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment; to imprisonment for