This paper talks about a buyer, located in Miami, who ordered 2,500 cell-phones from company for a total amount of $150,000 (including the shipping charge). But there were several problems with this order: the order was delayed and the phones were damaged by moisture during shipping. One of the customers is threatening the buyer company with a lawsuit because the "CoolPhone" caused him a car accident due to the interference. The second case is about an employee, Annette, of a company, who signed a contract with a very small corporate customer "SmallCo" that provided to acquire all the stock of SmallCo. SmallCo is holding company liable for the payments. Also, Brenda, who has been interviewed by company to be a sales representative; she wants to work from her home. Eunice wants to fire Annette and hire Brenda, but he is scared that Annette will work for the competition and steal his clients. The third case talks about company that wants to form an entity to sell its phones in the United States, and at the same time it is looking for a Chinese manufacturer. It is scared that the Chinese will copy its phones. The Chinese company sends Company a proposed manufacturing agreement that does not stipulate a clause concerning dispute resolution and Company calls upon a lawyer to help with these matters.
[...] However, others in the distribution channel also may be found liable, including retailers, wholesalers Retailers are particularly vulnerable when the product manufacturer is unreachable. Consequently, retailers need to be particularly careful to choose product manufacturers that act responsibly. But, does Company know about a problem of interference with GPS systems? It may be a problem with the GPS of the customer. We can't answer these questions but we can say that Company could have made tests to know if there could have problem with GPS system, and inform Buyer. [...]
[...] The solution for Company is, as it has the phones back, to repair the phones and re-deliver it to buyer at the same price as it has been agreed, and Buyer will get compensation from the insurance company. If Buyer doesn't accept this solution and refuse to pay the amount agreed, Company can still accept the 25% discount and accept to lose €25,000 or try to sell the phones to another company by replacing the backs of the phones. Tort Finally, there is a tort issue in the case. [...]
[...] Partnership In the situation it is said that Brenda and Annette are “partners”, but we don't know in what. A partnership is “a legal contract entered into by two or more persons in which each agrees to furnish a part of the capital and labor for a business enterprise, and by which each shares a fixed proportion of profits and losses”. So if Company wants to hire Brenda it is a point to clarify with her to see if they are not working in a competing business and if Annette is not doing industrial espionage. [...]
[...] She is in charge of negotiating sales of phones. She has an express or implied authority which means that the principal voluntarily and specifically sets forth as oral or written instructions in an agency agreement, or that the authority an agent assumes she has that relates to the express authority granted by the principal. In her job, Annette doesn't have the authority to sign a contract to acquire another company without telling Company. So the agreement with SmallCo should not bind Company. [...]
[...] A request for repair must be made either in conjunction with notice given under article 39 or within a reasonable time thereafter”, which means that instead of sending back the goods, the buyer should have spoken with the seller first to reach an agreement (for example a reparation, substitute phones ) . In the situation it is said that “ the phones not only arrived late but also appear to be damaged ”; does it mean that the buyer did not inspected the products properly? The fact that he is asking for a little discount reinforce this point. [...]
using our reader.