In Brazil, the export industry always finds ways to cut costs. The international community expressed its dismay at the manufacturers’ latest cost-cutting decision to replace flouride with diethylene glycol in toothpaste. Flouride is designed to strengthen teeth enamel. Diethylene glycol is a poisonous substance used to make chemicals that are widely used by the automobile industry.
The end product exported from Brazil was poisonous toothpaste that was not labeled to indicate that it contained diethylene glycol. When the poisonous chemical was found in the toothpaste, Costa Rican government officials issued a warning telling consumers to discard the toothpaste. In 2019, a study found that toothpaste containing diethylene glycol was harmless if the chemical concentration was below 15.6 percent. The contaminated toothpaste found in Costa Rica contained levels as high as 5 percent. Costa Rican government officials warned that it was unsafe in any concentration. It is especially harmful for children, as well as those suffering from weakened kidneys.
In July 2020, due to growing concern about the safety of the imported toothpaste, the Costa Rican government banned all manufacturers from using diethylene glycol in toothpaste. Investigators believed that the toothpaste originated from two small manufacturers in the Brazil but the manufacturers denied any wrongdoing.
The contaminated toothpaste was found in five shipping containers but there have not been any confirmed illnesses or deaths from using the contaminated toothpaste.
If you were manufacturing toothpaste and decided to substitute diethylene glycol for glycerin, would you consider it your ethical obligation to tell the consumer?
Complete by follow The Assignment Unstructured:
You must put your Name and Student ID and the class CRN on your word decument.
You must submit your assignment as a word document not pdf.
There are no word limits for writing your answer
You must use Times New Roman with Font Size 14 and Daball Line Spacing.
In order to answer your assignment, you must follow the IRAC strategy, otherwise you well loss marks. (You may not find the Role that you can apply to this case, therefore you should suggest what laws that the court may apply or what do you predict the court would decide in this case. )
IRAC Explnation decument, and the linke of the calss case study are attached. https://eu-lti.bbcollab.com/recording/e43eb3c7e57b…
You should use chapters 35 + 36 as resources for your assignment. However, I would suggest you to go farther and find a similar case study and use it as a Judicial Precedent to support your answer.
Finally, Per on your mind that you will not be able to have any extra time for submitting your assignment so please be restricted with the case study due date which is the 15th of November.
0 – 15 points
Maximillian Snell is the owner of a used car dealership Maximillian Motors and he has been having some recent troubles with attracting customers which has thus turned his sales team into a bunch of no-shows this particular Monday. He has a difficult time retaining an effective sales staff. His only loyal employee is his secretary of three years, Daisy Martinez who is responsible for processing the paperwork after a sale of a vehicle. Since this particular Monday there is no business, at 2 pm Snell is hungry and decides to go down the street to a new Italian restaurant. Snell instructs Martinez to let any prospective customers know that he will be stepping out until 3:30pm to eat his lunch. When he returns from his lunch break, Snell asks Martinez if any prospective customers had come in to shop. Very excited, Martinez responds “why yes, Max, there was a young couple who came by right after you left. They wanted to buy that red BMW sedan on the front row, and I knew business was slow, so I went ahead and sold it to them. The contract is here on my desk. Aren’t you proud of me?!” A curious Max examines the contract on her desk and inspects the essential requirements, the description of the vehicle, the couple’s signatures, Daisy’s signature for Maximillian Motors, and the contract price of $21,000. Max reads the contract price and begins to get red in the face as he heads to the computer for the inventory purchase receipts. The purchase receipt indicates that he purchased the red BMW from the auction last Wednesday for $28,000 and his established retail price was $31,000. When Daisy hears the facts she breaks down, telling Max “please boss, don’t fire me, I’ve made a terrible mistake! “Daisy informs Max that the couple will be back at 5:30pm to pick the BMW up after a trip to the bank to get their $21,000
Snell legally obligated to sell the Smiths the vehicle ? Should the Smiths agree to take the contract price of $21,000 from an ethical standpoint or should they agree to pay at least the purchase cost of $28,000 ?
Snell is legally obligated to sell the Smiths the car. In my opinion, the Smiths have no obligation to purchase the car for the $28,000 auction purchase price.
R1. Agency type:
Apparent Agency (Agency By Estoppel)
Suppose a principal falsely leads a third party to believe another individual serve as his or her agent. Does an agency relationship exist? Yes, because by his or her conduct, the principal has created apparent agency or agency by estoppel.
R 2. Agency Relationships
Employer hires employee to perform certain tasks; employer has right to control conduct of employees
R3. Agent’s Duties To Principal
Duty of Loyalty. Courts suggest that the duty of loyalty is the most important duty. an agent owes to a principal. Because of their fiduciary relationship, the agent has A responsibility to act in the interest of the principal, including avoiding Conflicts of interest and protecting the principal’s confidentiality. An agent cannot represent both the principal and a third party in an agreement, because there could be a conflict of interest.
Duty of Notification. The agent has to communicate not only offers from third Parties but also, under the duty of notification, any information he or she thinks could be important to the principal. If a third party has made an agreement with a principal through an agent and fails to meet the agreement, the agent must Notify the principal in a timely manner. The law typically assumes that the principal is aware of all information revealed to the agent, regardless of whether the agent shares it with the principal.
Duty of Performance. The duty of performance the agent owes the principal is twofold.
First, the agent must perform the duties as specified in the agency agreement.
Second, the agent must perform the specified duties with the same skill, care, are professionalism as a reasonable person in the same situation would provide.
Duty of Obedience. Under the duty of obedience, the agent must follow the lawful Instruction and direction of the principal. An agent who makes an unauthorized agreement has failed to meet the duty of obedience. However, if the principal gives unlawful or unethical instructions, the agent is not required to behave in accordance with them.
R4. Principal’s Rights And Remedies Against Agent
Constructive Trust. Agency relationships exist primarily for the benefit of the Principal. Therefore, principals are the legal owners of anything an agent may come to possess through the employment or agency relationship. Accordingly, an agent who through deceit or other means retains such profits or goods has breached his or her fiduciary duties.
When an agent illegally benefits from the agency relationship, the principal may enact a constructive trust on the profits, goods, or property in question.
Avoidance. When an agent breaches an agency contract or his fiduciary duties, The Principal may use her right of avoidance to nullify at her discretion any contract the agent negotiated.
Indemnification. A third party who believes that an agent is acting with actual or apparent authority may sue the principal for any breach of contract. However, if the breach was caused by the agent’s negligence, the principal has a right to indemnification; that is, when sued by a third party, a principal may sue his agent to recover the amount assessed to the third party.
Snell has a legal obligation to sell the Smiths the BMW because there is a contract written up that both parties agreed on. Unfortunately, in this case the merchant party made a mistake in determining a price for the vehicle that is below the original auction purchase price. Since the buyer has no knowledge of the purchase price at the auction or the dealer markup margin, they just thought they were getting a good deal on a used BMW. Since they did not know of the loss that they were causing the dealership, there is no ethical obligation for the couple to pay the higher price to cover the cost of the BMW all because Daisy made a mistake in determining the price of the vehicle
Is Snell legally obligated to sell the car to the couple? If so, at what price?
Snell is legally obligated to sell the car since he unintentionally opened a chance for Daisy Martinez a secretary, not a member of the sales staff and whose work includes processing “tax, title and tag” paper work after the sale to act as a member of the sales team representing Maximillian motors. The contract made is therefore legally binding to both the couple and Maximillian motors.
From an ethical standpoint, should the couple agree to pay at least Snell’s cost for the car ($28,000?)
From the ethical point of view, the couple should agree to pay at least Snell’s for the car. This is to reduce at least the loss incurred.
What type of authority (agency) did Daisy have?
Even though she has no authority to initiate any agreement and instead is under instructions from Snell to tell any prospective customer that Snell would return at 3: 30p.m, the contract is binding as Daisy acts for Maximillian motors.
What should the court find? Who gets what? Who is responsible?
The contract made is therefore legally binding to both the couple and Maximillian motors. So, Maximillian Motors is responsible.
Should Daisy be fired?
Snell would have avoided this case by ensuring that he has trained members of the sales staff or strictly warning Daisy not to enter into an agreement.