Business Law: Safety Of The Assessment Answer

Answer:

The Sydney cbd café was bought by Bill and Jill from the contract seller Dodgy Pty Ltd for a period of 5 years. The seller did not give the clear details about the operation of the business and the amount of cash it earns weekly[1]. Bill and Jill should ensure they have the signed documents to outline the agreement they engaged in with Dodgy Pty Ltd. On the other hand, the seller should be sued for giving wrong information to the buyers[2]. It is against the law to use false information to win the clients mind for one advantage[3]. It is punishable in a court of law and the seller may end up facing heavy fines for the intended mistake. In addition to that, the Dodgy Pty Ltd should also cater for the mental distress that they have cause Bill and Jill[4]. They expected a particular amount weekly and the business never earned the cash. The seller stated an amount in the contract was higher than what the café was earning weekly. There was a difference of 8,000 dollars on the weekly takings that was not acceptable by Bill and Jill as it was not their expectation[5]. There should have been clear details about the business and the contract seller should have given the right information regarding the enterprise (Rush & Ottley, 2006).

The contract is a very vital document as it outlines the terms and conditions that need to be followed for the benefit of the involved parties[6]. The business law ensures that the rights of the individuals who have engaged in the contracts. Bill and Jill will be compensated for their loss if they follow the law and report the matter to the authorities[7]. The court of law judges will help determine the final ruling and ensure that justice prevails. The Dodgy Pty Ltd had no right to give false information to the clients[8]. They should ensure that they always give correct details to avoid any complications or deceiving the customers. The law will ensure that Bill and Jill get their compensation from Dodgy Pty Ltd. It will help reduce the mental distress among that Bill and Jill are experiencing[9]. Moreover, they should have gotten legal advice so that the details of the contract would have been clarified to them. There are statements that may be confusing in the agreement and need to be understood clearly to prevent any future misunderstandings[10] (McKendrick, 2012).

Hugh Pizza Business

The pizza business ran by Hugh should follow the right procedure to ensure it is accordance to the law. The individual had been using the UberEats to pick up and deliver the pizzas to the clients all over Sydney. The sales have been good and the food delivery has ensured the success of the business. In addition to that, the change of the delivery mode to cut the expenses is not in the right manner as required by law[11]. There should be registered documents to show that they are legally allowed to handle the advertisements or operating the business. The management of the enterprise should be handled in the right way to ensure the success of the business[12]. The law requires one to acquire the business permit that allows one to operate a particular business on a day to day basis. The organization may be a sole proprietor or a partnership depending on the persons that need to engage in business[13]. The business laws stipulate the rules that need to be followed by all the businesses for a smooth running. The individuals who operate the enterprises should keep this in mind and ensure that they follow them to avoid any penalties or facing the court of law[14]. It is important for the best of the organization and its clients so as to avoid any complications in the future. The conflicts with the authorities due to lack of the required documents or not following the rules should be minimal and avoided at all times[15]. The violation of the law is not accepted and the persons should do their best to follow the rules (Gillies, 2004).

The UberPizzaDelivery may face heavy fines and end up lacking permission to operate the business. It is because they do not have the required documents to handle all the tasks they require. It is the duty of the management to ensure that they undertake the right measures and follow the law to acquire the relevant documents for the enterprise[16]. On the other hand, the introduction of other materials such as cheese that is not fresh is unacceptable. The organization need to face charges for its action. In addition to that, the business should face murder charges for producing pizza with out of date ingredients. The customers got sick and one of them died in the process for consuming pizza that does not meet the requirements. It is inappropriate for an individual to use ingredients that are stale to cut costs without worrying about the health of the clients. The health of the customers should be given priority as they are the ones who help the organization generate income from time to time[17]. They should be treated with respect they deserve to help have constant clients for the business (Frey & Frey, 2001).

The court of law will impose heavy fines to the pizza business and also be accused of murder for producing products that are harmful to the health of the people. The ingredients should be well checked and certified by the health officers to ensure they do not harm people. The business should also be put under surveillance for the authorities to monitor its activities[18]. The health officials should be deployed and check the status of the pizza production area and the ingredients that are used. It will ensure the safety of the public and ensure that no more deaths occur. The individual operating the business can also risk jail sentence due to murder caused by the pizza produced using out of date ingredients. The court of law has the power to terminate the business and impose heavy fines on the owner of the pizza business[19]. On the other hand, the customers can also report the matter to the court and the enterprise will be held liable for its mistakes. The organization will have to pay for the mental distress they have caused the clients and also take care of the medical bills to ensure the safety of the customers (Frey & Frey, 2001)[20].

Conclusion

Lastly, it will serve as an example to the other persons who engage in such dirty businesses without thinking of the safety of the clients’. Their main aim is to make money at the expense of the customers who on a day to day basis help generate income for the business. It is not acceptable by the law or even the society. The business individuals should do clean businesses that help them succeed gradually but not looking for other ways to become richer faster. The greed for money led to Hugh using the stale ingredients to make the pizzas that he sold to his customers all over Sydney. He had earlier been famous for his good products and he used this advantage to sell other pizzas that had been produced in the wrong manner. The health of the people deteriorated at a high rate and many got hospitalized as one of them died in the process. The business should serve as an example to other organizations that may have other motives other than conducting the intended business.

References

Beatty, J. F., & Samuelson, S. S. (2007). Business law and the legal environment. Mason, Ohio: Thomson/West.

Rush, J., & Ottley, M. (2006). Business law. London: Thomson.

Gillies, P. (2004). Business law. Sydney: Federation Press.

Abbott, K., Pendlebury, N., & Wardman, K. (2007). Business law. London: Thomson.

Cheeseman, H. R. (2016). Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues.
Boston : Pearson

Goldman, A. J., & Sigismond, W. D. (2011). Business law: Principles and practices. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Frey, M. A., & Frey, P. H. (2001). Essentials of contract law. Albany, NY: West/Thomson Learning.

McKendrick, E. (2012). Contract law: Text, cases, and materials. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press.

Case Laws

AGC (Advances) Ltd v McWhirter (1977) 1 BLR 9454

Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v KS Easter (Holdings) Pty Ltd [1989] 2 NSWLR 309

Alati v Kruger (1955) 94 CLR 216

Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2012] HCA 30

Astley v Austrust Limited (2000) 197 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 6 (4 March 1999)

Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344 

Booker Industries Pty Ltd v Wilson Parking (Qld) Pty Ltd [1982] HCA 53; (1982) 149 CLR 600

Brisbane City Council v Group Products Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 54

Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 401

Coal Cliffs Collieries Pty Ltd v Sijehama Pty Ltd (1991) NSWLR 1

Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447

Concrete Constructions v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594

Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31 

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd [1915] AC 847

Foran v Wight [1989] HCA 51; (1989) 168 CLR 385 

Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 1

Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013] HCA 1 (6 February 2013)

Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Limited (2007) 233 CLR 115

Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Lt (1938) 61 CLR 28

National Australia Bank Ltd v Garcia (1996) 39 NSWLR 577; [1996] NSWSC 253

Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty Ltd v Salmond & Spraggon (Aust) Pty Ltd [1978] HCA 8; (1977) 139 CLR 23

Walford v Miles [1992] 2 AC 128