Knarles & Barkley Essay

in that location be some(prenominal) things that keep up bypast wrong in the show window we were assumption to examine. Knarles had left his 17-year-old son Barkley to look later the medico found facilities aliment agate line opus Knarles at feeded a figure in Hawaii. The exact scope of the duties to be practiceed in Knarles absence was non pr adept to the reader. Knarles and Barkleys company had a peal of satisfied clients who they guarded a running(a) relationship without the welfare of a write replacing centralize. Knarles had a maestro relationship with his clients for a number of age, an express pack would non be considered unusual at a lower place these circumstances. Part of the services Knarles and Barkley (referred to here subsequently as K & B) provided was a pay replacing of outdated and broken equipment that were part of a building heating carcass as well as the decorative forethought required. In do-gooder to his other duties, Barkley w as amenable for renewing an employees demonstrate, which was a suffer of the pipe fitters employment let.His harm to do so resulted in having an unlicensed pipe fitter on staff, which can impinge on approaching transactions with clients that require bathymetry services for their buildings. Although Barkley was instructed by Knarles to take conduct of the licensing and gain experience in this theater of operations of building maintenance operations, I unredeemed the pipe fitter for non looking after his give birth inte residuum and putting something as valuable as having a functional license be the responsibility of psyche else. A sensible employee would bewilder negotiated the re radiation diagramation fee to be reimbursed upon receiving an updated license. The state of Maryland, K & Bs home state, offers online renewal of application, which does seem complicated or prison term consuming. 1 Even though the plumber was licensed out of the District of Columbia, t he WSSC impart reciprocate a plumbers license from D.C, Maryland and Virginia. During Knarles absence, Barkley was approached by Ian Chetum proprietor of a blood in Virginia, to perform the facilities maintenance on his establishment. K&Bs service had clients in the DC/Maryland/Virginia atomic number 18a and thitherfore Barkley direct Ian a standard agreement to which Ian signed and sent the appropriate fee to begin to aim services.A set about creates an agency that was implied from items and circumstances. In this case Barkley was in operation(p) the clientele with his father. The line of consort here that although Barkley was playacting as an factor for the maintenance company he was seventeen years old and both parties to a contract must(prenominal) be licitly capable ofentering into a contract. A minor, a lunatic, or the principal of an agent, not authorized to act in much(prenominal) a capacity is not responsible for debts contracted, therefore none of them coul d be parties to a contract.2 No surmise Barkley grew up in the industry and appeared to Chetum to be a reasonable person giving the purpose that he was capable of offering and accept the contract. In some cases, if the minor had deliberately misrepresented his or her age, the minor whitethorn not be permitted to avoid the contract.3 Our scenario seems to imply that offer and acceptance (although downstairs doubtful terms) was met.The buyer (Chetum) promised to purchase only products (in this case a mixed bargain of goods and services) it requires from the seller (K & B) and convergeed his financial agreement by sending in an sign payment. A short time after the contract was signed Chetum contacts K & B regarding one of his properties without heat. Barkley who is still in numeral on of the operations sends over his lapsed license plumber to look into the stance. The plumber instantaneously finds a residence Warmer kettleful that was rec entirelyed due to a nose candy monoxide show failure. ..a product whitethornbe soilively knowing if it is found that it fails to perform safely correspond to ordinary consumer expectations.4 While family unit Warmer is guilty of a defect in either manufacture or design, they did discover the defect and followed proper mental process for notifying purchasers and users. We are not told what steps House Warmer followed from there tho it was distinct to a trained plumber that the dot was not in operating condition. At this argue, the issue of who sold the steam timpani comes into play.The Restatement (Second) of Torts element 402A indicates that a seller is ultimately responsible for a forged condition. The Restatement (Third) of Torts loosely translates to that when the steam tympani was sold with the manufacturing defect the strict li baron f all in alls on House Warmer. An strategic component of product liability is that there occurred a sale of the defective product. As set forth in the UCC (2- 106(i), a sale is defined as the outlet of title from the seller to the buyer for a price. 5 The case study indicates that the boiler was purchased at a save yard. The salvage yard ..who engages in buying or selling used products is generally not susceptible to strict liability because the train of distribution has been broken.6 In addition to the boiler being recalled, the plumber notices that the boiler was improperly installed, adding another potential back released by theboiler. However, where the product was already in a defective state in the beginning it reached the hands of the assembler or installer, courts disaccord as to their im opinion of strict liability. liability whitethorn turn on their ability to detect the defect during the assembly or installation.7 What we encounter been told almost Chetums penny-pinching habits, he may have had a non-licensed operator install this boiler to save a few dollars. The plumber immediately notifies Barkley of the situation who in turn notifies Chetum, who does not want to pay for a new bailiwicking boiler and tells Barkley to have his plumber fix it no topic what. Obviously the contract between Chetum and K & B does not have an innocent clause that would relieve K & B from the continuation of inattention ( snow monoxide expo trustworthy in an flatbed building). Barkley is showing his inexperience in this matter and could have easily sited UCC 2 Sale of Services, declareing this situation is so one sided and detrimental to the interest of one of the parties that it operates to establish the contract unenforceable.8 The interest in this case refers to the excellent service K & B have offered their clients over the years. Barkely, operating on the theory that the customer is ever right, tells the plumber to continue to fix the boiler since thats what the customer wants at this lay in time.Barkley and the plumber (acting as his agent) are as guilty (negligent) of exposing those people to carbon mon oxide poisoning as Chetum is. Even though Barkley is a minor, and isnt well inner in every aspect of the maintenance building field, he should have trusted his plumbers opinion and not ordered the plumber to complete the job. Barkley, acting as an agent to K& B and not standing behind his plumbers opinion and ordering the plumber to put in a defective item, has put the company in a precarious position. A nephrotoxic tort is a tort caused by an separates contact with a toxic substance, which due to Chetums order and Barkley and his agent, the plumber are all responsible for move to expose the tenants to. Our poor plumber, following orders has cleanseed the boiler so it can continue for the rest of the winter, effrontery to him by an underage boss. cipher is indicated what the plumber had finish a die order form.A mop up of become certificate would have a section of the plumbers opinion written down, claiming that the client was notified of the defective recalled boiler and completed the job to clients wishes against his professional opinion. A completion certificate, is often relied on tocounter arguments raised later that, in fact, the job was not finished as promised or that the consumer was not satisfied with the work performed..9 A signed completion of work certificate, although will not thump K & B off the negligence charge, would possibly help a case further down the road, should Chetum claim he never knew about the condition of the boiler. At this point, I need to add my own diversity of citizenship issue to this case. I am not aware of the lease trespass that occurred in this Virginia apartment complex, but in New Jersey, all leased apartments must have a carbon monoxide detector in them. The tenant is not allowed to pull out the batteries unless to replace the batteries, but not allowed to relieve the working alarm, this is to allow the tenants to know that they are being exposed to a full invisible chemical and seek not only medical attention but I am responsible for remedying the situation.I am not sure what Virginias position is on notifying tenants when a news leak has been found, but Im sure that they would consider the three parties (Chetum, K&B, and the plumber) all negligent. Knarles returns from Hawaii and at a business luncheon discussed with colleagues finds out about the Chetum attendant that was reported in the local paper. Knarles and his colleagues Knarles makes a slanderous comment about Chetum during the luncheon, which is followed by other colleagues coming up with uniform comments. Unfortunately, as this case begins to unravel, a plain immature comment may tend to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community, or deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.10 Knarles colleague Joe Stucko do a vapid comment that he could not reasonableate about a HVAC system but shed some blithe on Chetums overall business dealings. After leaving the lunche on Barkley informs Knarles about the contract and the boiler. Knarles contacts Chetum tells him he wants to void the contract and refunds the initial payment minus work done by the plumber. Chetum at this point sues K& B therefore interchangeable rescission was not met.Breaking the contract involves several issues in this case. As previously mentioned the contract was negotiated with an underage minor, who we are not sure if he had contractual powers while his father was a counseling, could be one way to legally dissolve the contract. Chetum may claim that he was duped into believing the contract was valid since the external appearance of Barkley led him to believe that Barkley was a legitimate agent for the firm. Second,the fact that Chetum, K & B, and the plumber are all negligent of carbon monoxide poisoning and that K & B wants to distance themselves from Chetum, might be a reason for breaking the contract, it should be noted that parties to an illegal contract (keeping the attend of carbon monoxide going in the apartment complex) are responsible for their actions and their actions during the contract may have no standing in court. Not having complete knowledge of Virginias public policy on carbon monoxide exposure in apartment complexes, a breach of ethics is a concern.K & Bs actions, with the boiler repair/carbon monoxide poisoning, will no doubt hurt their fine reputation in the region for providing building maintenance that Knarles worked years to attain. It is possible that K & B may feel that continuing to service Chetum may require them to perform a future illegal act and they feel awkward about doing future business with them based on the recent events. The last in the series of arguments on valid reasons K & B could present for breaking the contract is that Chetum prevented them from fulfilling their end of the bargain, which is to provide safe and undeviating maintenance service. There are several courses of remedy that the courts may take root upon. If the courts decide to honor the contract then they have the option of choosing specific performance, if this is the case it would be based on the unique benefit Chetum receives and K & B need to fulfill the contract until it expires, however, it is doubtful that the courts want to be involved in monitoring the decisions made by K & B and Chetum, given the original situation.A form of reformation, where mayhap it could be negotiated that K & B performs cosmetic maintenance on the properties and not handles the technical maintenance. It is doubtful based on the personalities and the situation involved that either mediation or arbitration would conclude the problem. Some form of compensatory damages may have to be paid by K & B to have another service maintain the buildings until Chetum finds another service that would fulfill his requirements. financial damages based on the position breaking the contract put Chetum in might be considered. Naturally lawyer fees will hav e to be paid until this situation is resolved if this was in the original contract.