Law questions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Law questions - Essay Example This law also applies to situations which consist of an individual entering into contracts to represent a firm which has been established under law. Applying the law to the facts, we understand that Barkley was not eligible to enter into Contract with Chetum. Along with this, Barkley is not eligible to represent the firm of his father in his absence. Therefore, looking at the overall perspective of Contractual Obligations, Barkley could not have entered into a contract with any other party. In case a contract has been entered upon between a minor and some other party, then such contract happens to not be legally binding on the parties although the work of the contract may be carried out and performed by the parties. Issue 2 Whether Knarles is criminally liable for sending a plumber whose license had not been renewed Knarles was aware that the plumber’s license had not been renewed in the current year, and in spite of that his firm had sent the plumber to Chetum’s buildi ng to do the repair work. The question which arises here right now is whether Knarles and his firm are criminally liable under the criminal jurisdiction for engaging a workman whose license had not been renewed. Under the criminal jurisprudence, there is nothing explicitly mentioned with regard to the renewal licence as a criminal liability. However, on the other hand, it is a civil liability the employer should have taken enough precaution to undergo the renewal process. IN this case, Knarles had not renewed the licence of his employee, and therefore on this point the plumber was not eligible to go and work in Chetum’s building. Whether Chetum is liable for Negligence When Barkley had sent the plumber to do the job at Chetum’s building, there were two options present for Chetum to execute: 1. To change the entire Boiler 2. To repair the Boiler When the plumber had gone there to check for the boiler, he had informed his boss Barkley that the boiler needs to be replaced and not repaired. Let us analyse the facts to get a clearer understanding. â€Å"While inspecting the non-operating boiler at Chetum’s building, the plumber notices that the boiler is one that has been recalled by the manufacturer, Housewarm, because of a defect that does not allow all the carbon monoxide produced by the boiler to vent properly. This boiler was purchased by Chetum at a salvage yard and replaced another non-operating boiler. Further, the boiler has been improperly installed, according to the plumber. The plumber notifies Barkley of the problems with the boiler and Barkley immediately notifies Chetum. Chetum tells Barkley that he does not want to purchase a new boiler. He asks if the existing boiler can be fixed to get through the winter months. Barkley calls his plumber who is still at the Chetum site and asks the plumber about a quick fix for the winter. The plumber tells Barkley he would not recommend the quick fix for the winter as this boiler is defectiv e and has been recalled.† Looking at the facts, it can be directly inferred that the boiler which was in the building was defective and should have been replaced. However, to save costs and other expenditures, Chetum did not want that to happen and therefore asked for the boiler to be repaired. It is pertinent to note that the boiler which had been installed int the building was not only improperly installed but also was defective. Therefore there was an urgent need to replace the boiler, which was concurred by the plumber but not approved by Chetum. The