Business Law: Case of Compact vs. Electrotex
Business law aims at protecting the interests of all parties –including the business entity itself- in their interactions with a particular business organization. The various types of business laws put in place thus facilitate resolution of disputes between a business entity and other parties. A standard dispute resolution mechanism is important because social conflicts are inevitable in working relationships.
The question that arises in this case is whether Compact has a case against Electrotex that can be brought in a California state court or federal court.
The rule states that companies in the same state can forward their case to the respective state court. But in cases where the two, plaintiff and the defendant come from different states the case can be forwarded to a federal court for settlement.
If CompTac has continually purchased goods from Electrotex then there has been an implied contract which the two need honor. So when any of the parties dishonors this implied contract there is need for the other to seek redress in a court whose jurisdiction spans across the states.
Since CompTac is based in California and Electrotex in New York the case should be forwarded to the federal court for settlement.
The dispute between CompTac Inc. and their customer in the above mentioned dispute involves serious claims of a tort of negligence. According to Miller and Jentz a tort is an illegal act that causes harm to another person and/or his or her property while negligence refers to the careless performance of a legally required responsibility or failure to perform a legally required duty (95). In other words torts are unlawful actions which are or can be harmful to others as well as their properties. Did CompTac neglect its duty of care of their customer?
Miller and Jentz state that the law of tort seeks to make available remedies for the violation of protected interests. It gives remedies for actions that bring about bodily injury or get in the way of physical security of an individual. It also offers remedies for invasion of protected intangible interests such as individual privacy, family relationships, status and self-respect (84).
It is against the law for CompTac Inc. to neglect their duty of care for their customers when they are within their premises. According to Miller and Jentz the law provides that store owners like CompTac Inc. have a legal duty to protect customers from the possibility of slipping, stumbling on and injuring themselves on merchandise or objects that have fallen off the shelves or from their transport units like trucks and hand carts within the premises (96).
In the case by Miller and Cross CompTac Inc. failed to forewarn their customer of the possible danger of stumbling against a crate that has fallen from their delivery trucks. CompTac Inc. neglected their duty of care of their customer and is therefore liable for the injuries sustained by the customer who broke her leg (233). The injuries sustained would not have occurred but for the neglect of CompTac Inc. of their legally needed duty of care to their customers.
The law stipulates that store owners like CompTac Inc has a legal duty of protecting the tangible and intangible interests of their customers by warning them of the possibility of hurting themselves against goods or objects that have fallen of shelves or other places. CompTac Inc. has a duty to its customers to keep its premises in a harmless condition. That is, in a condition that does not endanger their protected interests. Even though the Crate against which the customer broke her leg may have fallen off the truck unintentionally the neglect of the same after falling amounts to a tort for which the plaintiff deserves a fair compensation.
The legal basis of the plaintiff’s case is the violation of her personal interests which includes her physical health. In this case, the customer’s physical health has been interfered with by virtue of sustaining an injury as a result CompTac Inc. negligence.
The injury sustained by the plaintiff is a clear indication that CompTac Inc. neglected its duty of care to her and therefore she deserves a fair compensation. Irrespective of the claims that the crate against which the plaintiff was injured had just fallen the neglect still amounts to injury of the plaintiff’s physical health which our tort laws have an obligation to protect. The damages paid by CompTac Inc. should serve as a warning to other business organizations which are not careful in safeguarding the protected interests of their customers.
The main issue between CompTac Inc. and Roban Electronics has risen from the violation of an employment contract by a key employee of CompTac Inc. who has been convinced to leave by Roban CompTac.Inc before the end of an employment contract made between him and CompTac Inc. Did Roban electronics contribute to the breach of the employment contract made between CompTac Inc. and their key employee? If yes are they liable for the losses incurred by CompTac?
It is against the law for parties entered into freely to fail to keep promises made under the contract. It is equally unlawful to knowingly influence another person to violate a contract. In the event that one of the parties breaks the contract he or she should be held liable for any losses incurred the other party as a result of the violation. The defendant instigated CompTac’s key employee to leave CompTac before the elapse of his employment contract and thus Roban brought about the breach of the contract knowingly.
The law of contract seeks to protect the interests of parties to an agreement entered freely. Parties to the agreement are therefore under obligation to honor promises made under the contract to the letter until the contract ends or is dissolved through the consent of the parties. An employee to an employment agreement like the one made between CompTac Inc. and Bartex can only breach the contract if the employer violates his entitlements of which the employee should be able to prove that they were violated and that the violation made him to breach the contract. The defendant is thus liable for the breach of the contract since the contract would not have been breached but for his influence.
The breach of contract by Bartex inevitably contributed to the losses incurred by CompTac and should therefore be held liable. The liability is founded on the fact that Roban unlawfully took CompTac key employee causing delay in the production of software. The liability is reinforced by the fact that Roban knew very well that Bartex was on contract and that it is unlawful to influence another to violate a contract entered into willingly.
An employee named Green uses his skills to transfer company money to his account, and later uses the very skills to revert back the money to the company account. Did Green overstep his responsibility in this case?
Employees of a company have an obligation to remain true and loyal to their employers and safeguard the resources of the employer. If they at any case overlook this responsibility then they should be liable an have a case to answer.
Even though Mr. Green was not caught by the company managers he failed to act responsibly by defrauding the employer for a week. As at the end of the day the company was not left worse off then this is clearly a case of responsibility towards the employer.
Because the company did not suffer financially it can only sue Green for absconding responsibility and use of his intellect for his own benefit as opposed to the overall good of the company.
The company has received complainants regarding the content of one of its flagship products does it have a responsibility to withdraw from the market?
A business should address social concerns, and ensure ethicalness in its production, distribution and marketing activities. Even though this may not be a tangible legal case it raises serious questions of ethicalness in conduct of business.
The company product-the video games are thought to be of bad influence to the children using them. This fails to address the company’s need to provide a thrill and instead intoxicates the minds of its users. The company has a responsibility to safeguard the social norms and in production and distribution of this product it fails to meet this crucial responsibility.
The company, CompTac should withdraw the product as a moral obligation towards its clients and for maintenance of its good image as an ethical company.
CompTac Inc. can protect its software from being pirated by copyrighting it with the Intellectual Properties Organization (IOP).Intellectual Properties Organization is an International organization which protects intellectual products like inventions, software, books and music from reproduction in any form without permission from the owners. By obtaining copy rights over its software through the IOP CompTac would ensure that An Phat does not pirate its software and in the event that it does so CompTac would have a legal basis on which file a lawsuit against An Phat Company. Obtaining copy rights would also ensure that An Phat are aware that CompTac software is copyrighted product which can not be pirated any where.
Miller, Roger, LeRoy and Cross, Frank. The Legal Environment Today: Business in Its Ethical, Regulatory, E-Commerce, and Global Setting. New York: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print.
Miller, Roger, LeRoy and Jentz, Gaylord. Fundamentals of Business Law: Excerpted Cases. New York: Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.