The first issue at hand is that Consolidated did not inform the military about the problematic materials because it feared it would lose its contract. It was common knowledge within the company that all of Consolidated Northern’s products had problems, much of which was due to the substandard materials used in manufacturing. (Marino, 2011) This issue is an ethical and legal issue. From a legal standpoint, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this was passed by the government states that, legally a consumer has basic rights such as, “the right to safety, right to be informed, right to choose, and the right to be heard”. In addition, “consumers have the basic right to be protected from the loss or injury caused on account of defective goods”.
The issues in this case did Mrs. Baker provide proof of Natalie’s appearance having a negative effect on the business causing sales and profits to go down? If Natalie’s refusal to remove the tattoo, after instructed to do so by Mrs. Baker constitute misconduct as defined by N.M. STAT. Ann § 51-1-7. Were Natalie’s unemployment benefits unrightfully terminated as a result of Mrs. Bakers claims of employee misconduct? Rule The State of New Mexico didn’t have a definition for misconduct so they
That would be due to that the fact that the inspections were to have been assumed to be passed during the work. The main focus of the case is whether or not the Estelle’s made their complaints known throughout the process. If the complaints were made known and Allen then decided to ignore the complaints and go about his own building plans then he could be held liable for this tort. However, if Allen was completed the work under the assumption that he had been passing the periodic inspections without any complaints then his corporation should not be liable because their work was assumed to be correct and acceptable until the end. “A corporation is a creature of statute, an artificial “person.” Most states follow the Model Business Corporation Act (MBCA) or the RMBCA that are model corporation laws.” Corporation is owned by the shareholders and managed by a board of directors.
The plaintiff appealed the decision on 3/30/2001 on the grounds that the trial court erred in their decision, basing it on the fact that no one had been apprehended and confessed to the crime. 4. The plaintiff did not recover anything in this case. 5. The court decided this case based upon previous cases of Connelly v. Family Inns of America and Kottlowski v. Bridgestone/Firestone and felt that the defendant did not act in willfully negligent manner and that the plaintiff should have locked his toolbox is he was concerned about the safety and keeping of his tools?
When Pat was hired he signed a document stating that he understood the company’s stance as an at-will employer, therefore, since no contract stating the duration of employment, aNewCorp could terminate Pat for any reason except for an illegal one (Cheeseman, 2010). On these grounds, NewCorp is within law regarding at-will unless there was an illegal reason for the discharge. Pat believes the provision in the employee personal manual and the disagreement regarding his position in the board meeting makes the discharge wrong. Pat will have to prove that the discharge was indeed a wrongful discharge by there being “a violation of state or federal
There wouldn’t have been any deaths if the building had proper workplace conditions and safety precautions. However, Blanck and Harris were later indicated by a grand jury and acquitted because it could not be proven that the doors were deliberately locked. The International Ladies Garment Workers Union was affected by this unfortunate event because they began pushing for better working conditions for sweatshop workers. 2. The main cause of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire was a violation of sensible safety measures, for example the doors being locked by the owners.
Since Smith’s use was ordinary, meaning that he was using the vehicle for normal everyday use under ordinary conditions, the dealer’s personal injury disclaimer cannot be enforced against him. The sales contract drawn up by the dealership is not reasonable as it favors them. It allows them to circumvent any effort to make sure the vehicle is working in a safe manner prior to the sale. In conclusion, I believe Mr. Smith will prevail against the seller for breach of warranty. The steering mechanism defect of the vehicle made it unfit for ordinary use ultimately causing the injuries.
First, the company leadership knowingly replaced the naturally occurring ingredients with the synthetic ingredients without changing the label on the packaging. This action violated the regulations set in place in the 1960s allowing consumers to have adequate and truthful information about the products they purchase. Second, the chemicals the company used to replace the natural ingredients are known to cause serious physical side effects including heart attacks and strokes. These side effects are a result of the stronger potency of the chemically generated ingredients as opposed to the naturally occurring ingredients the company originally utilized for the products. Finally, there is a dangerous lack of oversight by FDA regulators into the safety violations of companies such as Chemins leading to a reduced rate of public health and safety.
5. The confidentiality agreement did limit the scope of the audit performed on ZZZZ Best. It is the job of the auditor to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence. When Ernst & Whinney were not allowed to follow-up with anyone involved in the restoration process that limited their ability to gather evidence. The company should have been able to follow up with all venders and customers to attest to the validity of the financial statements and they were not able to do this and not able to gather the “appropriate and sufficient evidence” needed.
Since a reasonable person can foresee the action of the transport company could cause harm. Besides, the owner of the company owed Molly the a duty of care for protecting the equipment from damaged during the journey. That was the responsibility that the company should have held. However, they neither inform and train the employee how to deal with the fragile product and consider the condition of the equipment nor did they do any protection for the goods. If the owner of the company had taken some proper care like putting the equipment in a hard case, then the tragedy would not have happened.