Business enterprises across their world conduct their activities in such a dynamic environment which is defined by several another aspect including legal frameworks, demographics, political influences, economic factors among others. These factors may work either by enhancing or limiting the growth of business in various jurisdictions. However, the primary concern of this write-up is the legal framework which companies should stick to if they have to have meaningful working relationships with clients, suppliers, authorities and other stakeholders. The essay will focus on four cases to determine the best course of action that the involved parties should take to resolve the arising business conflicts.
Case 1: Joan and Ron vs. Hills Interior
In this case, the principal conflict is the fact that there is a disagreement on who should take responsibility for the broken chair. The fact that both the customers and the attendant at Hills Interior took part in loading furniture brings a question as to who broke the chair. The case is hard to determine as they are not sure of who loaded the broken chair. The case is made worse by the fact that the customers took on a role that was not theirs in the first place considering there is an individual who is employed for that particular task. Again, there is no way of ascertaining whether the chair was already broken before loading but since they were seated in plain sight one can claim that the chair may have broken in transit meaning that the cost of replacing it should be to the clients. As a manager of Hils Interior, I would hold the clients responsible for the damage since they insisted on doing the work meant for the attendant. If I compensated them, it would mean that in future the same scenarios may occur and the company would have to bear the costs all the time.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Case 2: Discount TVs Vs. McAdams Company
The case which represents a situation where the wrong goods are delivered is a case of failure to follow the laid out directives. While the procurement and supply procedures were valid, the customers received the wrong consignment for the price of the wrong consignment complicating the case. In this case, McAdams Company failed to adhere to the specifications and thus created a conflict of interest. More so the company incurred unnecessary costs in the shipping process. McAdams Company has the option of recalling the order and supplying the right consignment as much it will incur losses to keep the right work ethics and relationships. On the other hand, Discount TVs may opt to keep the 36” TVs and ask McAdams Company to supply the right consignment at discounted prices to compensate for the inconveniences caused.
Case 3: Marty Vs. Stowe Hills Resort
In this case, the conflict arises from the fact that Marty broke his leg while skiing as a result of a tree limb which the organizers, Stowe Hills Resort claimed was not there in the first place. It is clear to say that the sponsors misled Marty into believing that the course was smooth and that Marty went on skiing throwing caution to the wind. According to Legal Services Commission of Australia (n.d), companies are bound by duty of care to ensure that their clients are safe while in their premises. The case is complicated further as both Marty and Resort have the responsibility of ensuring that they stick to the necessary safety measures. In this case, the resort should take the responsibility to compensate Marty since they have the mandate of examining the course now and then for compliance. However, Marty should chip in seeing that he is supposed to be responsible for his own safety instead of relying his safety on the organizers.
Case 4: Sally vs. Machens, Inc. and International Motors
The case is not a unique one since some manufacturers fail to adhere to safety standards especially while manufacturing automotive and electronic gadgets. According to Andre & Velasquez (2015), manufacturers should ensure that the products they manufacture are safe to avoid bearing litigation costs in case of injury. In this case, Sally is a victim of a mechanical problem arising from failure to stick to safety specifications while manufacturing the SUV. This is clear considering that the SUV was new and that Sally was driving at recommended speed limits. As such, the International Motors should be responsible for compensating Sally on the sustained injuries as well as the damaged guardrail. The area of law that is applicable in this case is the failure if international Motors to stick to safety standards in the manufacture of their SUVs. Sally can claim to have gotten a raw deal in spite of spending a fortune is securing this vehicle. Additionally, Sally can sue Machens Inc. for failing to ensure that the cars they dealt in actually met the required safety standards.
References
Andre, C. & Velasquez, M. (2015). Who should pay? The product liability debate. Markkula Centre for Applied Ethics.
Legal Services Commission of Australia. (n.d). Negligence . Retrieved on 14 October 2017 from http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch01s05.php.
