Business Law Memo Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Business Law Memo - Essay ExampleUnfortunately, the shoot a line resultant incorrectly filled the car with gas worth $27.39 instead of $8.00. However, the plaintiff did not flummox any cash on him to settle the extra bill, he offered to leave behind his driving license as collateral until in the evening when he would return to settle the whole bill (Robert v. City sightly Lawsuit ). However, the manager of the gas station, Mr. Tommy, refused the collateral and demanded the plaintiff to suck $19.39 worth of gas from his tank. The plaintiff Mr. Robert tried to refuse claiming it is spoilt. However, he changed his mind when the manager endanger him with a police arrest. As he was siphoning, the plaintiff inhaled and swallowed some gas. The plaintiff Mr. Robert developed some health complications much(prenominal) as constant eye watering, burning of throat and dizziness. The plaintiff visited ER twice for severe abdominal pain and uncontrollable vomiting. The plaintiff has been fo rced to miss several days of work, avoided leisure activities such as trail running at Tier Park and playing basketball league. His medical bills are rising while his medical chassis ordain remain as such for long if not for life. Furthermore, his family is unable to put up with the rising hospital bill. Statement of the Issue The plaintiff employs our services in the lawsuit against Tommy and City Fair. The plaintiff believes that Tommy and City Fair should be held responsible for his medical conditions. According to the plaintiff, had the gas attendant followed the instruction careful, he would not have been forced to siphon any gas. His health condition would be normal. Analysis of the Case The plaintiffs only mistake was forgetting credit card at home. Furthermore, the plaintiff seemed in a hurry and scared of the police. From the look of things, the defendant took advantage of the plaintiff fear of the police and manipulated him. Tommy and City Fair violated business ethics and risked the health of the plaintiff. Their first mistake was to employee incompetent gas attendants who could not follow instructions. As a result, the attendant filled the car with more gas than required. It is correct to argue that the gas attendant caused the misfortune. Secondly, Tommy the manager refused to accept the driving license as collateral until the evening when the plaintiff would have settled the bill. By the fact the plaintiff was willing to leave behind his driving license, is a clear indication that he was willing to take responsibility and settle the matter. However, the defendant refused the security and instead forced the plaintiff to suck the contaminated gas. This gas has risked the health of the plaintiff. Another mistake made by the defendant is allowing contact with risky goods. This has been proved by the doctor who concluded that the gas is responsible for the plaintiff health condition. Apart from the plaintiff, the gas might also affect the health c ondition of employees working for the station or customers who are forced to suck when they fail to pay. In this case the defendant has a product liability. He is responsible for marketing defective goods to customers. Another mistake made by the defendant is forcing the complainant to siphon the gas using in suppress tools. In the vent that the plaintiff had appropriate siphoning equipments, then his health would have been okay. It is fundamental to acknowledge that consumer laws in Pennsylvania advocate fro protection and