W.L. Gore & Associates

docx

School

Cambridge *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

BEE3070

Subject

Law

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by LieutenantWolverinePerson283

1. Breach of contract Rule: A party will be in break of the agreement - or break the agreement - when they neglect to fulfill the guarantees, conditions or innominate terms that are the terms stipulated in the contract that they have vowed to perform. Failure to keep promises or perform duties without legal excuse results to a break of the contract. Application: Milkway LLC entered into a contract 10 years ago with Eatwell Corporation stating that Eatwell will be providing Milkwell with grains for the cows. On December 1 st 2017, Milkwell sent Eatwell an email placing an order of three truck loads for $10,000 organic grain to be delivered on January 1, 2018 by Eatwell. However, Eatwell did not deliver the grain on January 1 st 2018 which led to death of 100 cows due to starvation, costing Milkwell losses. Milkwell can file a law suit against Eatwell for breach of contract. Failure to deliver these grains led to death of cows which resulted to Milkway incurring losses. Weakness : except if the agreement explicitly gives a particular conveyance date of merchandise, a sensible deferral by one of the gatherings might be viewed as just a minor break of the agreement. At the point when a break is minor, the nonbreaching party is as yet needed to perform under the agreement, however may recuperate harms coming about because of the break. Thus the defense can argue that the breach was minor since Eatwell eventually sent the grains to Milkway as required. They can also argue that they thought Milkway meant they will order the grain on 1 st January when they said ‘we look forward to buying from you on January 1 st 2018’. They never received any orders.

Strengths : However Milkway has a solid case incurred losses for the late delivery and from the bad grains Eatwell sent as an emergency shipment. 2. Negligent And Breach Of Duty Of Care ( milkway vs Eatwell) Rule : In the event that a mishap is caused by a defective item, the proprietor of the property or the producer or dealer of the item is at risk whether or not the individual in question really made the peril or deformity Application: Milkway can file this claim against Eatwell. The emergency shipment Eatwell sent to Milkwell was expired which resulted to sickness of another 100 cows. The business suffered 40% profit loss due to the loss of 20% milk production. Strengths: Milkway lawsuit against Eatwell has grounds since the grain had expired. Eatwell neglected to check due to the hurry and carelessness which caused damage and losses of profits to Milkway. Eatwell also owed a duty to send the grains on 1st January 2018, which they failed to do. Eatwell can claim that the expired grain was an involuntary mistake but the rule states that the dealer of the goods that caused damage must be held responsible whether or not the individual caused the damage on purpose or not. Negligence (customer vs milkway) The customers can also sue Milkway for the damages. After the milk consumption, most of the customers became sick because the milk was bad. Milkway failed to check the milk quality before selling it to the customers. 3. Fraud Milkway vs. customer

A customer could argue that milkway decei8ved them with the warning label on the milk cartoon that said the milk sold is fresh and yummy. The customers could sues Milkways on grounds of deceit since the milk sold caused the customers to get sick which means it was not fresh neither yummy. The customers got sick from the milk which means Milkway neglected to check the milk quality. Defense: Customer extortion can include the utilization of deceptive, unreasonable, deluding, or bogus strategic approaches to sell products. To precisely demonstrate that the wrongdoer offered a false statement, this assertion should have an intent to deceive, should show fact misrepresentation and the casualty would be harmed as a result. The label on the milk cartoon showed that the milk was Yummy and would make one happy, healthy and refreshed which was a misrepresented fact since it made the customers sick. The label thus had an intent to deceit and harm was inflicted on the customers who drunk the milk, which qualifies this case as fraud. Weakness : Milkway will argue that they did not know the milk was bad since they did not check whether the grain had expire which will be a weak defense since it will be considered as negligence. 4. White collar crimes and misuse of authority Rule: these crimes can be prosecuted if the law was broken or an offense was committed against the state or an individual. These crimes include fraud or bribery. Application : After Milkway discovered the grain Eatwell sent had expired, they consulted Health Office and the government who sent an inspector. Eatwell however, bribed the inspector, with an expensive lunch; steaks and lobster tails. The Health inspector misused authority when he accepted $5,000offered to him to cover any fines

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

for the violations found . The Health inspection officer committed a crime by taking the bribe for personal gain and helping Eatwell get away with the crimes. Strengths : altering the violations and records can be considered a white collar crime. Eatwell gave the inspector $5000 to alter any violations found. He took this money alongside the fancy lunch he was offered for his own personal gain. Thus this could be a strong suit for the Milkwell. Weakness : the money however cannot be traced since there was no paper trail to show the transaction really occurred. The inspector deposited the money in Jessica’s account which means it could not easily be traced back to him. 5. Money laundering Adam and the Health inspection officer could be sued for money laundering. Money laundering occurred when the health inspector used a different account to deposit the money given to him as a bribe by Eatwell. This money was obtained unlawfully through covering violations which is considered a crime. The health inspector knew depositing the money in his account was a criminal offense that’s why he asked his friend Jessica to deposit the money for him. Weaknesses : A youngster younger than 18 is viewed as a minor and can't sign an agreement except if it is for fundamental things. Adam is 16 years old and for a contract to be legally binding; one needs to be of 18 years and above. Thus the contract signed between Adam and the health inspector can be considered void which frees the Eatwell from any charges regarding the contract.

Strength: bribery, money laundering and fraud are criminal offenses. Thus the Health office could be sued for money laundering and bribery offences committed by the inspector.

W.L. Gore & Associates

Related Documents