商业法案例分析

Case1Issue:WastheambulancecenterliableforRose'sinjuryincarcrashanddelayoftreatment?Rules:Thisquestionisaboutnegligenceliability.Apersonwhosuffersdamagebecauseofdefectsinaproduct,causedbythecarelessnessofthemanufactureorotherpartyresponsibleforthestateofgoods,mayhavearighttosuein"negligence".Tobesuccessfulinaclaimofnegligence,theclaimantmustprovethat:① Thedefendantownedthedutyofcare② Thedefendantfailedtoperformthatduty③ TheclaimantsuffereddamageToconsiderwhetherthedutyofcareexists,thecourtmusttakeintoaccountfollowingcriteria:① Reasonableforeseeability.Nodutyofcarewillexistunlessitisreasonablyforeseeablethat particular claimantwasvulnerable to the risk createdbydefendant.② Proximity.Thereisacloseenoughrelationshipofproximitybetweenthedefendant'sactsandtheclaimantatthetimeofthewrongcomplainedof.③ Publicinteresttakingintoaccountfairness,justiceandreasonableness.dutyofcarewillnotbeacknowledgedunlessitis fair,justandreasonableandnotdamagingtotheinterestsofthepublicatlarge,howeverbeneficialitmightbetotheindividualclaimant.Applicationoftherules:TheambulancecenterdidownMrsRoseadutyofcare.Asshewastheuserofservice,shewassomebodywhoreasonablyforeseeablywouldbeaffectedbythewaythedefendantprocesseditsservice.Themedicalemployeesdidn'tsecureRosetotheportablebedandmadeRose'sinjuryincarcrashanddelayoftreatment,soRose,theclaimant,sufferedfromthenegligenceofthedefendant.Publichealthconsiderationsmadeitdesirabletoimposeaduty,soitisfairtoputthelossontheambulancecenterwhostoodtoprofitingeneralfromhisservice.Rosehadtobetransportedbyanotherambulancetoahospitalcausingadelayintreatment,soshecanprovethatbyobjectivestandardsthedefendantfailedtakecareofher.Therewasevidencethattheinjuryanddelayoftreatmentwereactuallycausedbythe ambulancecenter's service.As the result, Rose suffereddamage.Conclusion:TheambulancecentershouldbeliableforRose'sinjuryincarcrashanddelayoftreatment.Case2Issue:CouldJennysuccessfullyclaimalllossesincludingpriceofBarbiedoll,otherpropertydamagesandmedicalcostfromSupertoyCompany?Rules:ThisquestionisaboutpureeconomiclossPEL:Pureeconomiclossisafinanciallossarisinginwhichthereisnopreviouspersonalinjuryorpropertydamagetotheclaimant.Theclaimantsuffersbutfinancialinjury.CEL:Consequentialeconomiclossisarisingfromphysicaldamageorinjury,suchaslossofearnings,followinganaccident.Applicationoftherules:Maggieisinfullaccordancewiththeproductinstructionsandtheeconomiclosswascausedbytheproductquality.Thepropertydamagesandmedicalbelongtotheconsequentialeconomicloss.SotheclaimantwasentitledtorecovertheconsequentialcostofrestockingthepajamasandotherfurnitureandforthemedicalcostofMaggie'sburnedarm.However,MaggiewasnotentitledtorecoverforprofitslossofBarbiedoll,sincethiswasjustarisingafinancialcost,whichwasthepureeconomiclossonly.Conclusion:JennycouldsuccessfullyclaimalllossesincludingotherpropertydamagesandmedicalcostfromSupertoyCompanyexceptthepriceofBarbiedoll.Case3Issue:ShouldBritishAssuranceCompanypayanymoneytoMr.Murphy?Rules:Thisquestionisaboutthelegalpersonalityand"theveilofincorporation".Aperson'slegalpersonalityismadeupofthatperson'slegalrightsandduties.Itisnotjusthumanswhohavelegalrightsandduties:thelawpermitsthecreationofartificialorlegalpersons(corporations)whichhavealegalseparatefromthemembers.Ifitappearsthattheallegedcompanyisamerefacadeforthefraudulentactivitiesoftheowner,itisknownas"liftingtheveilofincorporation".Applicationoftherules:TheIrishSawmillscompanyisalegalentitywhichhasitsownlegalrights,distinctfromthatofthecompany'smembers,suchasMr.Murphy.TheinsurancepoliciesareinMurphy'sownname,notthecompany's.SotheBritishAssuranceCompanyhasnodutytopayfortheinsurancefees.SinceMr.MurphyisthewholeshareholderintheIrishSawmillscompany,AweekafterMurphygottheinsurancepolicies,therewasafireinthecompany.Itseemstobethatthefraudulentactivitiesofownerexist.Thecompanyisjustusedasafronttoconcealcriminalactivities,sopiercingtheveilisjustifiable.Conclusion:BritishAssuranceCompanyshouldnotpayanymoneytoMr.Murphy.Case4Issue:WasMr.Whitepersonallyliableforhiscompany'scurrentbusinessagainstSmartMotors?Rules:Thisquestionisaboutthedutiesofdirectors,especiallyfiduciaryduty.Thefiduciarydutyisimposedbythelawofequityandrequiresdirectorstowiththeutmostgoodfaithindealingswiththecompany.Fiduciaryhasthreeconsequences:① Directorsmustavoidanyconflictbetweentheirownfinancialintereststhoseofcompany.Iftheybreachthisduty,theymustaccounttothecompanyforanyresultingprofit.(IDCvCooley)② Directorsmustmakefulldisclosureofanypersonalinterestwhichhaveincompanybusiness.③ Directorsmustexercisetheirpowersingoodfaithandfortheirpurposes.Ifacontractismadeinbreachofthedirectors'fiduciaryduty,thecontractisvoidable,and,therefore,thecompanyisabletochoosewhethertogothroughwithitornot.Applicationoftherules:Mr.Whitehadabusedhispositionasagentofthecompanyandusedhisinsideknowledgetoobtainthecontractforhisowncompany,whichsuppliesspareforSmartMotor'scustomerataveryundercuttingprice.Thisleadstoaconflictofinterest.Anyonecannotuseanyinformationofthecompanytogetprofitswithoutexpresslyauthorized.Mr.Whitewasnotallowedtodothatforhisproperpurposes.Butheusedtheinformationforhisowncompany.Conclusion:Mr.Whitewaspersonallyliableforhiscompany'scurrentbusinessagainstSmartMotors.Case5Issue:Whowillbeliableforthepaymentofdesignfees?Rules:Thisquestionisaboutapparentauthorityandpartnership.Partnershipistherelationswhichexistsbetweenpersonscarryingonbusinesscommonwithaviewtoprofit.ThePartnershipAct1890statesthatpartnershaveapparentauthoritytocarryoutanytransactionrelatingt