Managing Business Relationships Laws Case Study

Managing Business Relationships legal philosophys - Case Study ExampleJohn never verbalize anything signifying a retraction of that offer and incomplete party made a counter-offer be throw Lee accepted the terms. John knowingly withheld the change in terms he was aware of because he k raw Lee would not accept those terms. This sort of knowing deception can often void a contract.Because there is nothing in writing stating that Computerlink would provide support assistance 24 hour 7 days a week, it go out be difficult for RCL to prove that this oral agreement existed. If Computerlink admits to saying that or if RCL somehow proves they said that, Computerlink will be held legally trusty for their breach of the contract.Dave, a young assistant of the chief technician of Computerlink, is left at RCL to wrap things up and finish the job. It was his business to mesh up and set the alarm system before he left, but he failed to do so. This failure to comply with necessary procedures a llowed for some hooligan teens to cause an immense amount of damage to the property of RCL.While it may seem that Dave is to be held responsible, the Employment Relations Act of 2000 puts forth that Computerlink is to be held responsible. ... LawEmployment Relations Act 2000 - Employers are responsible for damage caused by their employees as it pertains to their employment.Special damages - compensate for damages that can be measurable numerically/monetarilyDirect losses - compensation for just the things that were damagedConsequential losses - compensation for loss of profits due to being closed to kettle of fish with or fix damagesApplicationDave, a young assistant of the chief technician of Computerlink, is left at RCL to wrap things up and finish the job. It was his responsibility to lock up and set the alarm system before he left, but he failed to do so. This failure to comply with necessary procedures allowed for some rowdy teens to cause an immense amount of damage to the property of RCL.While it may seem that Dave is to be held responsible, the Employment Relations Act of 2000 puts forth that Computerlink is to be held responsible. Employers are responsible for any damage that may be caused by their employees while they are on the job.RCL will be able to claim special damages from Computerlink. This will include the direct losses of the cost associated with cleaning and replacing the walls and blinds and possibly also the consequential losses that may be felt if RCL must be closed while those damages are being repaired and thus lose profits.ConclusionRCL can hold Computerlink legally responsible for the cost of cleaning and replacing the damaged walls and blinds.Section Two - Management - Question 1After Reds death, new changes for Red Carpet Ltd. (RCL) were discussed and agreed upon by Lee, Mike and Janet. These changes involved new responsibilities for the staff. Lee and Mike utilized different strategies for initiating these changes, and with th em came different benefits