Managing Business Relationships Laws Case Study

Managing Business Relationships Laws - Case Study Example John never said anything signifying a retraction of that offer and neither party made a counter-offer because Lee accepted the terms. John knowingly withheld the change in terms he was aware of because he knew 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 service 24 hour 7 days a week, it will 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 responsible 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 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. ... Law: Employment 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 measured numerically/monetarily Direct losses - compensation for just the things that were damaged Consequential losses - compensation for loss of profits due to being closed to deal with or fix damages Application: 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 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. Conclusion: RCL can hold Computerlink legally responsible for the cost of cleaning and replacing the damaged walls and blinds. Section Two - Management - Question 1 After Red's 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 them came different benefits