Clean Aqua Pty Ltd Legal Risks for an Act of Negligence

It is the responsibility of any business owner to ensure that the products are safe. Failure to adhere to set rules and regulations, which may lead to harm, places the company in serious legal risks. A company is prone to facing legal action, fines, or being imprisoned. The clients, who suffer damage as a result of using the product, could sue the company. Additionally, anyone who is injured by a hazardous product could sue. They can start their law court case up to three years from the injury date. In certain cases, they can sue up to ten years from when the product was offered to them. This paper examines the legal risks that Clean Aqua Pty Company faces for providing defective product to a client, and the risks it faces for naming the product clean, which could be termed as negligence on the companys part.

If this sample essay on"Clean Aqua Pty Ltd Legal Risks for an Act of Negligence" doesn’t help,
our writers will!

Trust an expert

The company is aware that the product is not safe for drinking but goes ahead and names the product clean. Under statute law, implementation authorities can take legal action if they demonstrate the product was unsafe. The company faces the following risks. Firstly, they may be ordered to stop producing and selling the product. This will have negative implications for the company. Secondly, if many products have been produced, the complainant is permitted by the state law to go to court and request for the company to destroy the already made products. Thirdly, Clean Aqua Company risks being fined or imprisoned for some years as stipulated by the state laws. Lastly, the complainant can request that the unsafe product is evoked, and the company produce products safe for the consumers.

Naming the product Clean Aqua brings the impression that it is safe for human consumption which is not the case. This could be termed as negligence or breach of care of duty since the health of customers is put at risk. Under common law, the company faces the following penalties: Incarceration- it is the right of consumers to be provided with safe products(Cheong v. Antablin). Violating such rights would lead to the enterprise stuff being incarcerated for a period stipulated by the law. Probation- the company is also subject to being put to test for duration that the state deems fit. Safety officials will usually visit the premises and record the progress. When they attain the required safety goals, they are allowed to continue with the production of the product. Monetary fines and penalties- under common law, the company is fined according to the much they make, which is confirmed from their books of record. In most cases, these fines are three times some overall profits that the company may have made by selling the default product. Forfeiture of unlawful gain- since companies are required to have a clear book of records, the authority has the power to seize that which was earned through fraud. These are inclusive of reimbursements and additional paybacks provided by the company to the CEO. Apart from the precise criminal fines, the company faces closure if the extent of damage is widespread.

Under the statute law, the company faces various risks. First, it risks being eliminated from states and federally controlled businesses, such as economic, security and healthcare. This has a sequence of other hazards, like withdrawal of insurance companies, which renders the business risky to operate (Knight v. Jewett). Second, it faces the danger of cancellation or pause of state and federally issued licenses. It is a requirement of the law that any business should be licensed. By the state cancelling its licensing, the business is rendered illegal. Continued operations will make the CEO be charged with operating an unlawful business and could be imprisoned. Third, the company suffers personal civil responsibility. This could range from working for non-governmental organizations without pay, to serve as a payback to the community. Once the state is satisfied with our services, it is probable that it may consider your plea. Fourth, the company and the staff involved in selling the defective products face the risk of disruption of both private and professional life. Disrupting private life would include being denied passports, eviction from property, hindrances to attending certain schools and hospitals. Professionally, it will be extremely hard for one to get a job with a different company since the recommendation letter touches on selling harmful products to humans.

In conclusion, at the event a customer incurs damages as a result of consuming an unsafe product; it is their right to sue the responsible party. Additionally, it is allowed under the law for the affected to seek compensation. On the other hand, it is the duty and responsibility of business enterprises/ companies handling domestic products to ensure that they only make products safe for humans. The principal obligation for the safety of the goods falls on the producers, companies that supply own-brand merchandises and the businesses that modify the security of the products by tailoring or servicing it.