REPORT TO ADVICE CRU

Report to Advice CRU

Report to Advice CRU

Introduction

Clocks-R-US Ltd is responsible for making clocks and selling the best quality products to its consumers. However, the case study of the company shows that it is not taking the responsibility of the loss of profit in the case of defective clocks. In addition, it is also not taking into consideration the lack of responsibility of workers, or less working hours, which is causing the company, a loss of £1000 per day.

Therefore, in this essay, we will be advising the company on the above mentioned factors, which are, the company must pay refund or must provide some incentive for defective products. Also, it should inform the employees about their working hours.

Discussion

The case study of the company tells that Clocks-R-US Ltd (“CRU”) manufacture clocks from parts it buys from suppliers. It then sells clocks from its internet site. Clocks bought quartz from Rock Ltd (“Rock”). The written contract between CRU and Rock states: “Our quartz complies in all ways with Policy 17 of the International Quartz Suppliers guidelines. Otherwise, Rock will not be responsible for any defect in the quartz, including by way of breach of any express or implied term of this contract.”

Policy 17 relates to quartz used for drill bits. The quartz supplied does comply with Policy 17 but is unsuitable for use in clocks. It has cost CRU £5000 to have the quartz removed from part assembled clocks and another £5000 to buy replacement quartz. CRU sold 10 clocks to Fred for £500.

On the “Legal Stuff” page on the CRU website, it says: “CRU will refund the purchase price for any defective clocks but is not responsible for any consequential loss, including lost profits, caused by a defect in the clocks.” Fred uses the clocks in his factory and because the clocks run fast, Fred's workers get off 10 minutes early causing Fred £1000 lost profits.

Defective Clocks

Each of us at least once in their lives faced with a situation where the newly purchased goods did not conform to the requirements stated by the manufacturer, if not a defective one. In most such cases, the majority of people do not take any action, especially if the money spent was not too much. Usually this is the reluctance pettifog, spoil their nerves, and often not knowing their rights and actions to be taken to return the money spent. What if the defective item is not worth a hundred rubles, and in ten, or even a hundred times more? Ever to defend their rights still have. A restorative justice mechanisms are the same, and for defective nickels trinkets, and low-quality car. In this paper, we find that under the law mean by poor quality goods, consumer rights, as well as practical aspects of the return of defective goods.

Under the conditions of UK law, the company is responsible for defective product that does not comply with (adviceguide.org.uk):

Conditions of sale and purchase agreement entered into between the buyer and ...