According to facts presented in the case Freschco has experienced damages and further 3 weeks losses that were a result of poor work carried out by Crankit on the said refrigeration units. Still in this case ,a third party was injured and is considering legal action against Freschco. It is important to note that Crankit was the cause of all the damages and losses incurred by the client due to the mistakes that were committed in the services that were rendered. Crankit acted against the agreement of their contract with Freschco by installing faulty devices that resulted in the explosion, damages and injury to the customer.By virtue of the fact that the explosion was as a result of a mistake done by Crankit, it is clear that they did not carry out their work as agreed in the contract. The contract was that the work should be carried out with a lot of responsibility so as to avoid the problems that happened after.
The failure by Crankit to be responsible enough in their work means that there was a breach of contract. Freschco should explore the possibilities of legal actions against Crankit. This should be on the basis of Breach of contract.In the contract, Crankit promised to perform the services with responsibility to avoid losses in the company. The failure for the company to keep the promise of acting responsibly in the services should be treated seriously hence should initiate legal action.
Freschco has incurred losses and a third party person has been injured. The company has to take the liability and compensate the customer who was injured. This is because it is their responsibility to protect all customers who come to their premises. In cases of customers getting injured they have to take care of them including adequate compensation to cater for their medical expenses. This is because the law requires all business owners to ensure that all their business premises are free from potential dangers that might injure customers as they seek services.Freshco should be sure that because the law on consumer protection is in existence, the customer would have to sue them.
As for the damages that were caused as a result of the explosion, it is important to note that the explosion did not occur because of Frescho’s mistake. If the case was the Frescho wrongly operated the machines leading to the explosion, they would have accepted the liability. Because it was the mistake of the service provider that led to the damages, then it is a breach of contract.
Crankit should therefore be held responsible for using shoddy materials in the course of offering services to the client. They should therefore take the liability for the damages and the losses incurred as a result of their shoddy work. It would not be fair practice for Frescho to take all the liability to damages resulting from its faulty machines.
As for clause 223, it is not valid because Crankit was entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that good work was done in the contract. No one can agree to sign a contract in which shoddy services is offered.Crankit in the services offered guaranteed that the machines were in good working position
Clause 224 would appear to be valid because the third person was not injured directly by the services of Crankit. It would be difficult with this clause for Frescho to sue Crankit for compensation of the third party with the existence of this clause. According to the Sale of goods Act section 14 (2), Crankit was under obligation to offer goods and services that of satisfactory quality. The failure to meet the required standards by Crankit, means that legal action should be taken against the company based on this Act.
In conclusion, Frescho should first of all explore diplomacy channels with Crankit to understand their position about the matter before opting for a legal proceeding. Considering the validity of the two mentioned clauses in the contract, Frescho might stand to loose in a court battle with lack of competitive lawyer.
References
- Ewan McKendrick, Contract Law – Text, Cases and Materials (2005) Oxford University Press
- ETU, The consumer Law.