The scenarios presented in this case involve a number of people whose activities related to SureCo Inc. raise many legal issues. Several torts occurred in the scenarios presented by the SureCo agents and customers’ activities. One of the torts witnessed is a breach of contract by Franco is the case when he misleads SureCo customers to increase their insurance coverage so that the premiums could not be raised in the future. Another tort that occurred in this scenario appeared when SureCo’s boss fired Franco. The SureCo’s boss also injured Raul while he was exercising his right. Due to the actions of these people, in this case, plaintiffs could include Franco, Raul and SureCo customers. Based on the scenario of this case, the first defendant, in this case, should be Franco (Cheeseman, 2010). Franco misled SureCo customers to purchase more insurance policies based on pretense and thus, he should be held liable for his mistakes. Another possible defendant, in this case, is the SureCo; this is because the company has employed agents who act on behalf of the company. SureCo’s boss could also be qualified as a possible defendant because she injured Raul, a customer of the SureCo.
According to the law of torts, a civil wrong is committed when a person behaves in a manner that leads to injury or damages suffered by another person. In this case, the plaintiffs could sue the defendants based on the provisions of the tort law. For instance, the actions of Franco led to misrepresentation by misleading SureCo’s customers, yet the company had no policy of retaining insurance premium rates. The provisions of the tort law state that the plaintiff will have the burden of proof in any case (Carter, 2005). As a result, the SureCo customers have to prove that Franco’s acting on behalf of SureCo promised them what the company could not deliver. Raul, as a plaintiff, could make use of tort law’s provision of strict liability. The SureCo’s boss, as a defendant, could assert that she had no intention of committing a tort against Raul. Franco could defend himself by giving the excuse that there was no contract between him and the SureCo. Moreover, SureCo could defend itself using the services of its lawyers and did not have the intention to create legal relations with its customers through false information provided by its agents (Cheeseman, 2010).
The above legal issues could be resolved through legal actions being taken against the defendants. The plaintiffs, in this case, suffered real damages caused by the actions of the plaintiffs. In the case of SureCo customers, the actions of Franco on behalf of SureCo led to the outcome in which customers increased their insurance coverage without guarantees. As a result, the courts of law have the obligation of determining the extent to which defendants have to be compensated. On the other hand, Raul has the right to sue the SureCo boss regarding her careless actions that led to him losing his eye (Cheeseman, 2010). According to the provisions of tort law, strict liability is assigned for harms individuals inflict onto others. Based on this provision, Raul should be compensated for harm suffered because of the actions of SureCo’s boss. The determination of the occurrence of a tort is left to the courts of law to determine, and thus the courts of law are better placed to handle the scenarios resulting from the above cases. Moreover, in the case of Franco and SureCo’s boss, his dismissal could be handled using employee contract agreements (Carter, 2005).
References
Carter, J., Harland, D. & Lindgren, K. (2005). Principles of Tort Law. London: Butterworths.
Cheeseman, H. R. (2010). The legal environment of business and online commerce: Business ethics, e-commerce, regulatory, and international issues, 6th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.