SCENARIO QUESTION

Scenario Questions

Advise the parties in both cases regarding

Liability for the injuries caused during the construction of the car park

According to the law both the parties, Digit and Smooth are not liable for any injury. The Digit's digger and driver which caused an injury to Smooth's gang did not actually belong to Digit Ltd and considered as an independent contract and the Smooth employs workers on daily basis so they are non employee workers who do not really work for Smooth Ltd. And according to the UK law for Vicarious Liability, if the individual who caused the injury was not an employee and used independent contractor than the employer is not liable for the injuries caused by them. So this solves the matter for Digit and Smooth. As far as T & P Computers Ltd is concerned, and the injury caused to there employee, they should provide full compensation to him. And they also may suit a charge against Smooth Ltd for appointing an incompetent worker, and thus claiming Vicarious Liability (FindLaw UK, 2012).

Whether James is in breach of his contract of employment

James is in breach of his employment contract if it is mentioned in his contract of not using other client's resources for personal use. If it wasn't verbally agreed, written, or an implied term than he is not in breach of his contract of employment. But if so, than James had no right to use its client's resources, at least with out their consent. If he even had a verbal consent for using their resources, he would not have been considered liable for such activity (Direct, 2012).

A claim by the client company against T & P for the cost of the copying done by James

T &P should compensate the client company, because James was an active employee of their company which makes them liable for any faulty activity which they consider as a violation from there part. In not doing so, the client company is legally able to sue T & P Ltd for the action of their employee (Clydeo, 2012)

If Charles was appointed how easy would it be to

Dismiss him within the initial six months if he proved to be unsuitable

It would be very easy to dismiss Charles within his initial 6 months trial period. Trial period has no particular legal importance and there are no legal rights which can arise just by the benefit of a trial period. And so Charles will not even be entitled to claim unfair dismissal. Because unfair dismissal claims requires a period of minimum two years of constant service according to the revised British employment law (Emp Law, 2012)

Dismiss him after two years on the assumption that he had been made a director

After two years it won't be that easy to dismiss Charles. If Alan and Betty have the right to appoint Charles as a Director, that means they are the Directors of the company as well, but where as dismissal is concerned, it requires shareholders approval as well, and so ...