Issues Based on Case Study USB Chargers

Question: Discuss about theIssues Based on Case Study for USB Chargers. Answer: Introduction The Australian safety standards have been implemented for the USB chargers in the country. Faulty or non compliant USB chargers are considered illegal and the shops selling such charges can face prosecution. In the following parts, the liability of the people, on the basis of negligence, has been discussed with regards to the faulty USB chargers. Issue 1 A contract is formed by exchange of a promise or set of promises, for consideration, between two or more parties. There are certain essential elements to form a contract, and these are an offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, capacity, and clarity. In the present case, Jonas received the charger from a friend without any exchange of consideration. There was no intent to create a legally binding agreement. There was no offer or acceptance, as there was no promise. Hence, Jonas cannot seek compensation from his friend on the basis of contract law. When a person fails to take the necessary care, which a reasonable person would take in similar circumstances, it is the case of negligence. Negligence is covered under the Tort Law in Australia. Negligence is caused when a duty of care is owed by the person towards the other person. In order to bring claims against a person on the basis of negligence, an injury or loss has to proved. Without an injury or loss, an aggrieved person cannot claim damages or compensation. To establish if negligence is present in a case, an analysis has to be done regarding the following points: whether a duty of care was owed; has there been a breach of duty; and lastly, did the breach result in a loss or injury. In the case of negligence, an aggrieved party is eligible to receive monetary compensation. Further, if the aggrieved party can show that such injury resulted in mental distress, they can claim monetary compensation for such distress. The case of negligence can only be established if no defenses apply to the breaching party. There is a voluntary assumption of risk. If the person, who has sustained injuries, was aware about the risk of injury, and fully as well as freely understood the risk, and still accepted the risk, then such aggrieved person cannot claim damages against the other party. Further, when the risk is obvious, the aggrieved party is assumed to have known about the risks. And so, such party cannot sue the other party for damages. Lastly, where the risks are inherent, the breaching party cannot be held liable for the injury. There is also the case of contributory negligence, where the aggrieved party is aware of the risks and knowingly indulges in the activities which result in harm. This acts as a defense for the breaching party and the aggrieved party is not allowed to claim damages for such injuries. In the present case, Jonass friend gave him a faulty charger. It was the duty of Jonass friend to reasonably warn Jonas about the faulty charger. Further, as such chargers are not considered safe by the NSW Fair Trading, Jonass friend should have prohibited himself from using the charger, much less give it to his friend. Jonas suffered burns as a result of this act of his friend. So, Jonass friend would be held liable for negligence. Here, Jonas can sue his friend for negligence under the Tort Law and claim compensation. As he suffered distress from such injury, Jonas can also claim for damages on the basis of mental distress. But, it was also the duty of Jonas to check the charger for its safety. He had to ensure that the charger met the Australian safety standards. He knew that the charger did not fulfill such standards and that such noncompliant chargers are risky. This is the defense available with Jonass friend. And since, a defense is available with the friend of Jonas, it can be concluded that Jonas is not eligible to receive compensation in any form, from his friend for the injuries he sustained. In the present case, the charger was supplied by the internet caf. The service of supplying chargers and allowing its customers to charge their devices for free was offered as a means of attracting more customers. And so, a duty of care was owed by the owner of such internet caf to its customers regarding the safety of the charger. The owner of the caf was in the controlling position and did not take the responsibility of ensuring the chargers safety. He did not warn his customers regarding the faulty chargers and as a result, an injury was caused. It was fair and equitable to impose such a duty of care on the owner as he wanted to earn profits by attracting more customers. This would make a prudent person responsible for ensuring the safety of such charger. To establish that a breach of duty of care has taken place, some factors have been analyzed. The degree of the risk in this case was high as there have been incidents in the past where such fault charger had resulted in the death of its user. And the NSW Fair Trading have clearly banned the sale of such products. So, the risk of injury from the use of such charger was foreseeable and not at all insignificant. The failure of the owner directly resulted in the injury to Jonas. Further, there was high chance of the fault charger resulting in an injury. The owner of the caf had not taken any steps to safeguard or remove this risk. But, again in this case, the defenses are available with the owner of the caf. As a prudent person, Jonas had to ensure that the charger which was provided by the owner of the caf was compliant or faulty. The compliant chargers have insulated pins and have the approval marks (Regulatory Compliance Mark) of the authorities. By not ensuring the safety of the charger, Jonas voluntarily accepted the risks. Though, Jonas can clearly establish in this case that, he did not have the precise knowledge of the risk associated with the faulty charger. Further, he can also prove that he did not have the full and free understanding of the risks associated with the charger. So, it can be concluded from the above analysis that, Jonas can sue the owner of the caf for negligence. He can also claim compensation for the injuries he sustained as a result of the negligence of the caf owner. When a false statement made by one person, results in a harm or injury to the other person, it is the case of negligent misrepresentation. Such a person would be liable for the harm or injury to the other person which resulted from the misrepresentation of this person. Further, a negligent misrepresentation has to be made to induce the other party to enter into a contract. For a negligent misrepresentation, there has to be the presence of a representation and such representation should have been provided for a particular purpose. The person indulged in such misrepresentation should have had the knowledge that the other person would rely on such statements. Lastly, the other person must have suffered a loss or injury as a result of the negligent misrepresentation. To establish a case of negligent misrepresentation, it has to be proved that the person making such representation did not have any reasonable grounds to make such a statement. In the present case, the owner of the shop told Jonas that the charger was compliant with the Australian standards, when in reality, the charger was noncompliant. He had made such negligent misrepresentation so as to induce Jonas into the oral sale agreement for the sale of the faulty charger. Jonas had taken the proper steps to ensure the safety of the charger. So, there are no defenses available with the owner of the shop in this case. Further, the owner of the shop was aware about the fact that the charger was noncompliant as the charger did not have any safety marks on it and there was no other basis for making such statement. The owner of the shop also knew Jonas would indulge in his misrepresentation and would buy the charger. So, in this case, Jonas can sue the owner of the shop for negligent misrepresentation as the owners misrepresentation resulted in injuries to Jonas. Further, the owner of the shop is also liable to a penalty of up to $87500 as have been set by the NSW Fair Trading. Conclusion On the basis of the above case study, it can be concluded that an injury or harm resulting from negligence, makes the aggrieved party eligible to receive compensation for such loss. Further, a negligent misrepresentation enables a person to claim compensation against the misrepresenting party for the loss or harm incurred.