IDO based on intentional tort

IDO based on intentional tort

1. Yes, Zein and Tania can sue IDO based on intentional tort. The company had a legal responsibility to provide duty of care. However, IDO failed to conduct adequate tests with the new oven design to guarantee safety. Hence, in this case, the damages took place due to the company’s negligence. IDO owed the customer due of care by ensuring that the new design was safe. Besides, further investigation proved that the new design was defective. In addition, Zein’s wife, Tania took into consideration all the warnings and instructions provided by the company. Therefore, under the law of tort, she is not liable for the damages incurred. According to product liability laws, the manufacturer is duly liable for all the damages caused by a faulty product. The oven was not inherently unsafe and therefore, its failure was due to a defective design. The case meets all the elements of intentional tort.
2. In case that the oven was designed and manufactured perfectly, and was not faulty, Zein and Tania can still sure IDO for unintentional tort. Unintentional tort occurs when a product causes accident resulting in damages or injury. In this case, the unintentional tort would result from the company’s negligence since it failed to undertake adequate tests to ensure the new design of the oven was safe for household use. Negligence was therefore the main cause of the damages since the damages would not have occurred if the company tested the new design prior to selling. As such, the company did not provide duty of care; however, the plaintiffs (Zein and Tania) must prove that the company failed to exercise reasonable duty of care resulting to the damages. This includes examining IDO’s operation / behavior from the perspective of a reasonable person. In case IDO breached the duty of care, the company will be legally liable for all the damages incurred. Hence, IDO would compensate Zein and Tania for the damages.

Case Two

1. WakeUp Co. can protect its invention by getting a patent from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Under the intellectual property law, a patent safeguards an inventor from losing their invention and therefore, other individuals cannot use the inventor’s idea to produce a similar invention. In this case, a utility patent would be the most preferable because it protects against various elements including process, machine, composition and manufacture. A utility patent is application for about twenty years which implies that WakeUp Co invention is protected for that period. Hence, the company can proceed and distribute the smart coffee maker to retailers.
2. The invention of WakeUp Co. satisfies the conditions needed for a patent. The intellectual property law asserts that in order for a patent to be granted to an inventor various conditions must be met. For instance, the invention must be new, inventive/ unique and useful. As such, the new invention/ technology must be novel and should not have had any usage in the past. When it comes to novelty; the invention must have distinctive qualities that make it unique and different from other inventions available in the market. In terms of inventive, the invention must incorporate technology and creativity that may not be easy to come up with. This means that ordinary persons are unable to develop such an invention. Lastly, usefulness entails that the invention is applicable for meeting certain needs. In this regard, WakeUp Co’s smart coffee maker is new, inventive and useful and thus, it can be patented.
3. I would suggest “WakeUp D’light” as the commercial name for the invention. This is because this name is highly distinctive and presents a positive message. Unlike the previous commercial name, “Bright Morning which is generic,” “WakeUp D’light display distinctiveness. I coined the name “WakeUp D’light” from wake up delight which relates to the main objective of the smart coffee market. Hence, this name is not only distinctive but also suggestive since communicates its purpose to potential clients. In addition, this name is not already registered and therefore, the company would not incur any liability for using it.
4. Under the law of contract, the promise of Shein is not legally binding. This is because various elements of consideration are not fulfilled. For instance, analyzing this case using benefit-detriment approach, Shein, the promisor does not benefit from gifting You Are Not Alone Association 1000 smart coffee makers. Hence, Shein is not gaining any benefit and thus, the consideration lacks. Additionally, You Are Not Alone Association does not incur any loss/ detriment from this promise.
5. Shein’s behavior is not ethical because it indicates that she lacks integrity. Hence, from a principle-based argument, her behavior is unethical because it goes against personal values of honesty and integrity. Besides, from a consequence-based argument, failing to keep her promise may affect the operations of You Are Not Alone Association negatively. This is because the association may have already directed the funds for coffee makers to other activities.