Question

business law cases

Case 3 Central Ceramic China Lid was an importer of various lines of dishes and tableware that it sold in quantity to hotels and restaurants. Approximately 70 percent of its sales consisted of hotel-grade dishes, 20 percent of fine bone china dishes, and the remaining 10 percent consisted of cutlery and cating utensils For many years the firm used the services of Able Transport Co to deliver its goods to customers who were located in various parts of the country. All goods were shipped in cartons marked "FRAGILE CONTENTS BREAKABLE IF ROUGH-HANDLED. The contients were normally packed in a strawlike material to provide some protection in the event of impact or careless handling. This reduced breakage of the shipped china to a minimum acceptable level. Only occasionally would a customer report breakage, and this usually consisted of only one or two pieces in a shipment of perhaps many hundreds Central Ceramic recently tested a new type of foam packing material and decided that its use would permit the contents of a case to withstand a reasonable amount of impact if the case should accidentally be dropped. Management then decided to use the new packing material in cartons that were not marked with a "fragile" label in order to obtain a lower shipping rate. The company informed Able Transport of the removal of the "fragile notice on the containers and requested a lower shipping rate. Able Transport agreed to handle the goods at a lower rate. During the month that followed, management of Central Ceramic monitored the breakage rate and noted that it was approximately the same as when the other marked containers were used. The next month the company shipped a very large quantity of china to a distant hotel customer in the new containers. The china was shipped in 36 cases. When it was received by the hotel, almost half of the china was found to be either cracked or broken. An investigation by the carrier revealed that road vibration during the long trip had caused the packing material to shift, allowing the pieces of china to come in contact with each other and break, if the carton received any impact. Central Ceramic took legal action against Able Transport for damages equal to the loss. Able Transport denied liability Discuss the arguments (if any) that the parties might raise in this case. Render a decision Case 4 Samuels, an elderly widower, conveyed his farm land to his son Peter for life, then to his grandson Paul in fee simple. In the deed, he reserved to himself the right to continue to live on the farm and to receive 50 percent of the income from the farm during the rest of his lifetime Peter operated the farm with the assistance of both Samuels and Paul for a number of years, during which time he paid his father 50 percent of the farm income. Eventually, Peter decided to seek employment in industry and took a job in a nearby manufacturing plant. At that point he decided to cease farming. A short time later, the barn was accidentally destroyed by fire and the farm machinery destroyed. Samuels Peter, and Paul cach claimed to be entitled to the proceeds of the fire insurance on the barn and the farm machinery Discuss the rights (if any) of each of the parties to the insurance funds in this dispute

Answer 1

Case 3

Central Ceramic may file a negligence tort against Able Transport. If the product or service is not meeting the standard performance expectations of the consumers due to some negligence caused during its manufacturing or service delivery, then it qualifies to be a case of negligence tort. It was due to the negligence of Able Transport that the chinaware of Central Ceramic broke and hence they need to bear the losses.

The Able Transport can claim that Central Ceramic had made changes in the packaging and had asked them to remove the fragile notice from the containers. In such a scenario, the chinaware were shipped as regular consignment and eventually, led to the damage. So, Central Ceramic holds the answerability for the losses.

In this case, Central Ceramic will be considered liable for the losses. This is so because they had changed the delivery interventions and informed Able Transport to incorporate the changes and charge a lower shipping rate. They were risking the consignment and hence they will be considered to be solely responsible for the damages caused to the consignment.

Case 4

In this case, the property transfer has happened through fee simple. Fee simple in property or estate depicts the transfer of full ownership of the property under law. Samuels had conveyed his farm land to his son Peter for life under fee simple and then to his grandson Paul. There was only 1 condition put in the deed that Samuels will have the right to continue to live on the farm and to receive 50% income from the farm for his remaining life time. So, as per the deed, all rights of the land have been transferred to Peter and he holds the ownership till death, after which the ownership gets transferred to Paul. So, only Peter will have the legal rights for the insurance claims.