Supermarket’s safety

Answer

Egeeay Supermarket owes a duty of care to Barbara. Governed by the legislation (Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957), any supermarket is expected to do anything it can to ensure a safety of for any of its visitors. Parla (n.d.), from Roythornes solicitors, explains that the minute a person steps into a store, the store is responsible for ensuring reasonable safety for the purpose for which the person stepped into the store. Any supermarket is legally obligated to either deal with or warn its customers of a dangerous situation likely to arise while they are in the store. Therefore, Egeeay Supermarket owes a duty of care to Barbara.

    Egeeay Supermarket has not breached its duty of care to Barbara. Morris (2019), while advising on claiming compensation when injured in a supermarket, explains that for as long as a supermarket can prove that they have taken every precaution to properly monitor their store by way of a cleaning and inspection regime, the courts will not find them liable for any injury by a customer. Morris (2019) mentions that sometimes a customer does the spillage and walks away without notifying an attendant. He further explains that supermarket premises are usually big and the supermarkets cannot be expected to monitor each and every spillage as it happens. In the above case, the store has a policy to do checks every 15 minutes of the floor in the fruit section. It is possible that the grapes in the pet-food section were unconsciously dropped by another customer thus the store manager was not sure how the grapes got there. Thus, Egeeay Supermarket has not breached its duty of care to Barbara.

If Barbara had slipped on some grapes in the fruit section of the store, Egeeay Supermarket would have evidently breached its duty of care. The store acknowledges that there are a number of spillages every week in the green grocery section of the store. The store even has a policy to check the floor of the fruit section every 15 minutes. Unlike the pet-food section where the store can easily get away with claiming it does not know how the grapes got there or how long they had been there, the store is expected to be more vigilant in the fruit section. This is because acknowledging there are multiple spillages makes the store liable for any slip and fall injuries in this section. Thus, if Barbara had slipped on some grapes in the fruit section of the store, Egeeay Supermarket would have evidently breached its duty of care.

Week 7

Against the retailer, Underwear Galore, Brown has several remedies under the Australian Consumer Law. The Australian Consumer Law dictates that a consumer is entitled to a repair, replace or a refund if the product does not meet the consumer guarantee offered. Brown can, therefore, demand a repair, replace or refund for his underwear as it did not serve him as expected. However, he is not entitled to a compensation for damages from the retailer, Underwear Galore. The Australian Consumer Law explicitly outlines that for a compensation for damage or loss, the plaintiff must prove that the supplier could have foreseen and prevented the damage to the consumer. In the above case, the retailer had no means of determining whether the underpants were free from irritant chemicals as the underpants had been packaged in a clear cellophane wrap and the bisulphite of soda could not be seen on a reasonable inspection by either the retailer or the Brown. Therefore, Brown is entitled to a repair, replace or a refund but not a compensation for the damages suffered from the retailer, Underwear Galore.

             Guided by the Australian Consumer Law, Brown can succeed in a suit against the retailer for as long as he can demonstrate that he bought the underpants from Underwear Galore, he relied on their skills and judgement to purchase the goods, there was an implied warranty for the goods and that the retailer could have foreseen and prevented the damages that he encountered after using the underpants. In my opinion, Brown would not be successful in an action against the retailer, but against the manufacturer. In the appeal to high court by Australian Knitting Mills and John Martin & Co, Starke argued that it was unreasonable to expect James Martin & Co to determine that the goods were free from irritant chemicals yet they had no means of detecting the chemicals (Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant, 1933). Similarly, Underwear Galore had no means of detecting the irritant chemicals that led to Brown’s dermatitis. The underpants were wrapped in a clear cellophane wrap, directly from the manufacturer and the bisulphite of soda couldn’t be seen on a reasonable inspection by the retailer. The retailer was simply a middle-man supplying the underpants as received from the manufacturer. Thus, Brown is likely to fail in an action against the retailer. However, against the manufacturer, Brown is likely to succeed. The manufacturer may have been negligent resulting in bisulphite of soda traces being left on the underpants. Moreover, the manufacturer is adequately equipped with the resources, skills and machinery to check and ensure there are no traces of irritant chemicals that could harm a consumer. Also, the manufacturer can put a ‘Wash Before You Wear’ tag on the underpants to prevent the consumer from the danger of contracting diseases. If Brown can demonstrate that the manufacturer did not do any of the above and was negligent in his duty of care to the customer, he can win in an action against the manufacturer.       

Week 8

            Becoming a franchisee offers several advantages. Business experience is not a requirement to run a franchise as management and training support is offered by franchisors (Mazzarol, & Reboud, 2020). The franchise offers a business system, management and practices already proven to be successful thus helps in avoiding certain risks. Despite having an already established reputable image, franchising also offers access to ongoing advertising support and marketing tools. With a wealth of expertise, experience and networks, franchising offers the evasive advantage of accessing the resources of big businesses but having the independence of a small business. Moreover, as higher rates of success are witnessed in franchising, banks and financers readily offer funds to such ventures as compared to entrepreneurs who choose to not to become franchisees. However, there are drawbacks to becoming a franchisee. Like a dog on a leash, franchising limits creativity as one is barred by franchise agreements. Also, with a limit on the location of operation, the goods to deal in and even the suppliers to buy from, franchising may restrain the profit margins for a business.

            Depending on the situation of the person going into business for the first time, a franchise offers a less risky opportunity to do business. Although there are possible downsides to franchising, the advantages, for a person venturing into business for the first time, far outweigh the flaws. The person not only gets to learn from the best but they are also provided with an ongoing support that ensures that they succeed. Finances are readily available for such a venture compared to independent operators. Risk avoidance is also possible through franchising. Therefore, in the long run, franchising may be retrogressive, but for a first-time entrepreneur, franchising is the best option.  

Week 9

            The Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 developed a blueprint for modern laws on corporation. Dahal (2018) describes it as a genesis of modern laws on corporation. From the case came the establishment of a company as a separate legal entity clearly distinct from its directors, shareholders, officers and creators. The case further developed the principle of limited liability of shareholders (Dahal, 2018). This made accounting and bookkeeping easier. For decades, courts have been keen to maintain these decisions, thus it can be confidently concluded that the Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 developed a blueprint for modern laws on corporation.  

            Corporate veil refers to the legal concept of treating a company as an entity separate from its shareholders, directors or any other personalities behind it. The company is treated as an independent person with rights and liabilities. It protects these members from being personally responsible for the debts and obligations of the company. Under the Corporations Act, wrongful and fraudulent trading and abuse of the corporate independence warrants a lift of the corporate veil to punish the officers behind such criminal acts (Govender, 2019). Oak (2020) explains that sometimes, the independent corporate personality principle is exploited by officials of a company as a cloak in order to commit fraud or other wrongful acts. Under such circumstances, the Corporations Act warrants a lift of the corporation veil. 

Week 10

            A member of a company, as defined by the Companies Act 2006, is a person who has subscribed to the memorandum of association of a company and who is recorded as a member in the register of members of a company. Intricate details about each member such as their names and addresses must be included in the register of members. Shareholders, on the other hand, are simply people or organisations who buy shares in a given company. The register of members of a company includes all investors and any person who own shares in the company. Thus, any person who is a shareholder is a member but not all members are shareholders in a company. To become a member, one can subscribe and sign the memorandum of association of the company, get shares either through transfer or transmission and the transfer or transmission is recorded by the company along with the entry of the name in the register of members, taking and paying the qualification shares of a company or becoming the beneficial owner of shares whose name is registered in the record of the depository (Surbhi, 2015). The company law does not impose any particular exclusions and any person who is of sound mind and capable of entering into a valid contract can become a member of a company. Private limited companies must have a minimum of 2 members and a maximum of 50 members while public limited companies require a minimum of 7 members with no cap on the maximum number of members. Transfer of all shares by a shareholder, repossession of all shares by a company from its shareholders, death and insolvency of a member and forfeiture of a member’s shares by a company are all circumstances that result in the cessation of membership. (Kihumba, 2014).