ipl-logo

Rampart Security Case Study

838 Words4 Pages

When Rampart Security was hired by Nationwide Discount Furniture to install an alarm in its warehouse, Rampart Security took on the obligation of notifying Nationwide immediately in the event that a fire should set off an alarm in Rampart’s office. When a fire did breakout, Rampart allegedly failed to notify Nationwide, causing the fire to spread next door and damage a building owned by Gasket Materials Corp. By failing to notify Nationwide of the fire, Rampart failed to complete their delegated responsibilities, thereby breaching their contract with Nationwide. Though Rampart had no contract or delegated responsibilities towards the Gasket Corporation, the neglect of their responsibilities to Nationwide did result in damages to Gasket property. …show more content…

wanted to promote its “California -style” pizza, to sell in supermarkets, they contracted with the Highland Group, Inc., to produce 2 million recipe brochures. Highland then contracted with Comark Merchandising to print the brochures which would then be inserted in the carton when the freshly baked pizza was still very hot. However, when Comark asked for details concerning the pizza, the carton, and so forth, Highland refused to supply them with the information. The hot bread from Boboli’s pizza caused the ink to run on Comark’s first lot of 72,000 brochures, and customers opening the carton often found red or blue splotches on their pizzas. Comark then sued for breach of contract when Highland refused to accept any additional brochures and Highland defended by claiming that Comark had breached its warranty of merchantability. Though Highland’s defense initially sounds legitimate, Highland‘s failure to communicate unique standards and their mishandling of Comway’s product is what actually compromises the products merchantability. Comark should hold enough special knowledge about their product to manufacture it in order to withstand temperatures that would not render the product unsuitable for its intended purpose. However, Highland’s refusal to provide Comark with information concerning the pizza and carton details dismisses Comark from its warranty of merchantability as it forces Highland to fall under the strict liability standard. Highland’s mishandling of Comark’s product by exposing it to extreme temperatures is what caused the ink to leak onto the pizza and possibly endanger customer health. This falls under the subsection of the strict liability standard: defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user. “The defendant is liable only if the product is defective when it leaves his hands. There must be something wrong with the goods. If they are reasonably safe and the buyer’s mishandling of the goods causes the harm, there is no

Show More
Related
517 Words | 3 Pages

Read Case 10-2, Welge v. Planters Lifesavers, on page 243. What theory of liability did Justice Posner use in finding the defendant liable? Judge Posner used the strict product liability theory in finding the defendant liable (Herron, 2011). Under the strict product liability theory, K-Mart (seller) would be held liable for defects in their products even if those defects were not introduced by them; also for failing to discover them during production (Herron, 2011).

Read More
652 Words | 3 Pages

The issue presented in this case is whether the San Francisco Giants was negligent when Janice Lewis was pushed and fell on the top of the metal bars during the parade. The San Francisco Giants Will be found negligence of San Francisco Giants breached the parade duty to its patrons and, as a result of that breach, Janice Lewis was injured. McGarry v. Sax, 70 Cal. Rptr.

Read More
834 Words | 4 Pages

Lisa Hetherington LGST 495 7980 Professor Hansen 17 April 2016 Project 3: Response to Action Introduction This case was brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Jim Jones, who alleges that the Defendants, Grab-n-Go, Inc. (“the store”) and by proxy, its owner, Mr. John Smith, did negligently leave some amount of coffee creamer on the floor near the coffee bar, which he stepped on, slipped and fell, but for causing the injuries he sustained that day. The defendants, through their attorneys, move to DISMISS the counts brought against them pursuant to Md. Rules 2-322(b)(2), Failure to State a Claim. The plaintiff, Mr. Jones, alleges one cause of action: Negligence (Count I), Maintaining Negligent Conditions. He stated in his claim that the store employees failed to clean up a mess of coffee creamer, which was part of their duty of care to him as an invitee on the premises, and upon which he slipped.

Read More
1796 Words | 8 Pages

SFC Picart had exclusive access to and control of the equipment and other causes could not be determined, he may be presumed to have caused the loss by not issuing a sub-hand receipted in pursuant to AR 735-5, paragraph 2-8a (4) or AR 710–2, para 2–10.) d. SFC Picart’ s actions prove that he failed to maintain custodial property accountability, supervisory responsibility and substantiates personal negligence by allowing personnel to compromise access and remove equipment without establishing the chain of custody in pursuant to AR 735-5, paragraph 2-8a (4) and AR 710–2, para 2–10. There is no evidence of theft. e. Approximately one (1) month later an inventory determined that 9 equipment sets were missing.

Read More
568 Words | 3 Pages

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory The Progressive Era was a difficult time for workers. It was a time where many workers were getting hurt or killed on the job, paid low wages, had little to no safety requirements and worked long hours. It was even more difficult because it seemed as owners never really cared about their workers or their safety. All of that changed after the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire that showed how bad the working conditions and safety of workers was.

Read More
1474 Words | 6 Pages

As I mentioned earlier not everyone is aware of what The Family and Medical Leave Act is, what the law is for, and how it can be or should be used when they should if the company where they work employs more than 50 people. By law employers are supposed to inform all employees about FMLA. In the case of Jeffrey Angstadt verses Staples Contract and Commercial, Inc. Angstadt was wrongfully fired because he did not know about the FMLA and could not balance his work responsibilities and taking care of his ill wife.

Read More
1020 Words | 5 Pages

Part 2 Occupiers' liability in Australia The defendant in this case , Xerox Supermarket , has an very important role which is identified by the Australia law as an occupier. Hence , I will try to refer to the occupiers' liability law and relative regulation ,especially from the passed legislation of Western Australia , South Australia and Victoria . Actually , the occupiers' liability law still obeys the general principles of negligence like standard of care and proper criterion . However , it can provide the judger a more practical and accurate view on the possible liability of the supermarket as a typical premise of retailers .

Read More
1292 Words | 6 Pages

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire was an influential event in American history that caused workers and business owners all of the country to revisit their work-related regulations. Many dangers that occurred as a result of the factory owners’ actions caused the tragedy to be more harmful than necessary. Other preventable mistakes made by the firemen and their equipment added to the tragic nature of this event. America has learned that factories and businesses need safer rules and work environments to protect their employees. Because of this tragic event in the nation’s history, the government passed an abundance of laws to support the safety of workers and their work conditions.

Read More
1813 Words | 8 Pages

In the case of Donald Margolin, vs. Novelty Now Inc, and three guys, Chris, Matt, and Ian, whom all live in the state of California decided to market their aftershave lotion “Funny Face” over the Internet. Donald Margolin, a successful CEO is seeking damages after he bought a bottle of Funny Face aftershave lotion that was discovered that a low-cost chemical PYR turned his face a permanent shade of blue. Even though, the site stated that anyone purchasing this product cannot file a claim against Chris, Matt, or Ian and that all disputes must be prosecuted in the state of Florida. So, before the appropriate court can proceed with this case, the court needs to take into several considerations around the rules of jurisdiction, alternative dispute

Read More
99 Words | 1 Pages

The 6-17 Attack Reconnaissance Squadron Battalion Commander has requested a Knowledge Management Working Group (KMWG) consisting of Commissioned and Warrant Officers to find a resolution to an Aviator printed versus Electronic Flight Bag. Upon initial observations, the Commander has concluded that the unit is spending more money on printed publications than using a digital solution. The squadron-working group has conducted an internal review of these options, which have identified the processes cost and effectiveness of both courses of action. This process consisted of group forums, individual worker interviews, and a squadron staff assembly to complete the overall guideline assessment.

Read More
775 Words | 4 Pages

Third, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions were the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Determining the cause, is often done by applying the “but for” test. An injury would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s actions. In short, a person must firstly has a duty of care and he breached his duty that causes damages or loss to the other party to be liable for negligence.

Read More
1591 Words | 7 Pages

Although the technicians working in the site were fully aware of the faulty design, they violated many safety regulations while running tests on the plant. While running the tests, they disabled the reactor’s emergency cooling system, removed a dangerously large amount of control rods, and disregarded a warning message to shut down the

Read More
2332 Words | 10 Pages

In this case, the defendant was accused of selling adulterated milk. It was sufficient for liability to prove that the milk was adulterated and that he was selling it ; his mistake that he had thought the milk was pure was irrelevant. Similarly in the much later case of Alphacell v. Woodward, liability was established under the section 2 (1) (a) of the Rivers ( Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 by the defendants causing polluted water to enter a river. The fact that they had not known that the pollution was taking place and that they had mistakenly thought that their filtering system was operating efficiently did not exonerate them. So based on the illustrated cases, we can see clearly what is strict liability really is.

Read More
3686 Words | 15 Pages

Assignment: Laws 7100 Abstract Before Donohue v Stevenson was decided in 1932 it was unclear whether the transferor of a product owed any duty of care to the ultimate receiver of the goods. It was taken as a matter of fact that there was a clear absence of contractual agreement between the parties and therefore no Duty of Care. The only Duty of Care implied was if the goods were in a class of “Dangerous Chattels” (the privity of contract fallacy 10-2) or if the goods in question were known to the transferor as being dangerous. (Langridge V Levy (1837).)

Read More
829 Words | 4 Pages

The lack of negative outcome does not absolve the owner of his negligence, but only hides the fact. The problem lies not in the conclusion he came to, but in the biased assessment with which he formed.

Read More

More about Rampart Security Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document