The given assignment mainly highlights the two given case study in which one case is related to the Samsung case and other is related to accident. Both cases have to analyse as per the Australian laws and legislation.
In the Samsung case, one customer has been injured due to the defective products of the company as his Samsung phone has caught fire due to the overheated battery which not only injured his body but also his BMW car has totally destroyed. So, in this assignment, multiple laws and legislation will be evaluated to analyse what compensation he could get for the damage done to him.
In the second accident case, one person named Alan has requested a car driver, Steven who was drunk for a lift at a particular place. Steven said yes to Alan to take side seat and after sometime he met with an accident and both got serious injuries. Alan who was a computer technician has not been able to do his job so want to sue Steven for whatever has been done. Laws and legislation will be reviewed that what compensation could be taken for Alan for the damages done to him.
The conclusion will be added in the end to find the findings of the fact.
This step has been taken by a citizen of Australia whose name is Jane. He purchased a Smartphone of Samsung. The name of the model was Samsung Galaxy Note 7 in August 2016. The phone had a problem with overheating due to which an incident happened in January 2017 in which Jane's hand suffered through a significant burn (William, 2010). While she was trying to get away from the phone, the fire was alighted in her BMW car as well due to which it was completely destroyed. Many other incidents have also taken place in several other countries apart from Australia as well due to which many people had to suffer a lot and had to bear huge loss. This incident took place because of the overheating issues of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7. When these incidents happened often, then Samsung took a step in order to restrict the capacity of the battery and also blocked the ability of the phone to connect to networks that are wireless. Jane, who is the victim of the incident is liable to get the compensation for the injury she suffered and the loss she had to bear. Here we will discuss the laws that will help Jane to get justice as well as the compensation for the loss of BMW, the injury and the phone.
As per the incident that happened, Jane is not guilty of that and she is liable to get the compensation for the loss. As per the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), she have the right to fight against the Samsung company's fault of manufacturing such products which can harm anyone. As per an article that was posted online, it is clearly accepted by the Vice-President of Samsung, named as Mr Richard Fink that the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 has the battery issues and the overheating issues. Just in a week after this phone was launched, 35 complaints were noticed stating the overheating issues due to which the sale of the phone was kept on hold. As per the information in this article, the customers were also liable to get the full refund of the phone (News. 2016). This is a civil issue and as per the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), it is clear that a consumer can seek compensation for the losses that they bear due to the faulty products of the company and that are what Jane wants. Jane has suffered a lot just because of the overheating problem and now she seeks compensation Samsung (ACCC. 2018).
As per the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Jane can file against Samsung in order to get compensation. In Australia, this law was amended on 31 October 2017. In Australia, this consumer product guaranteed has been applied for everyone who is suffering or who has suffered since January 2011. This is a step that was taken by the Parliament of Australia which prior to this was known as the Trade Practices Act 1974(ACCC, 2016). As per the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 also, Samsung is liable to pay the penalties of the issues that have been caused due to the problem of overheating in the smartphone. Jane has filed the rights against Samsung which is based on these acts and in these acts, it is clearly mentioned that the manufacturer or the owner is supposed to pay for the compensation that has been caused to the consumer due to the company's fault. The loss of the BMW, the physical burn on Jane's hand and the loss of phone, the company is supposed to pay for all the three losses as the victim has no fault. Also, it is clearly stated that these type of issues has also been registered in just a week after the launch of this phone.
The legal court case is against Samsung company and the reason is the manufacturing of smartphone that has overheating issues and due to which many people had registered complaints. These cases were filed against the model Samsung Galaxy Note 7. Jane, who is the victim of the accident that took place because of the BMW alighting fire due to the overheated phone and also Jane suffered from a significant hand burning, is liable to fight against the rights and get compensation for the loss. Some of the facts have been represented which clearly stated that this issue was not only with Jane but also with many other people who have also registered the complaints and took the refund after returning back the products. As per the Australian Consumer Law(ACL), some of the acts have been introduced in the benefit of the victims where the victim can file a case against the company for the compensation. These acts are the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and Australian Consumer Law and Fait Trading Act 2012. The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 is applicable since 01 Jan 2010 and thus Jane has the right to fight against the company implementing this act.
The strength of the case which can make Jane win the case are the complaints that have been registered by other people in just a week after the launch of this product. Even the Vice-President of the Samsung Company has accepted this fault of their company that the phone has overheating issues. The law that has been stated in the Australian Consumer Law that is Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 clearly is in the favour of Jane as this incident has happened due to the manufacturing of the wrong product. All the above-mentioned information is clear to say the damage and loss that has been caused to Jane and that Jane can go ahead and file a case in order to get the compensation for the loss. As per the case, all the points, analysing all the issues, no weak points can be noticed which might go against Jane and thus Jane should get the compensation of the losses which includes the damage of BMW, the injury and the smartphone.
This case is between Alan and Steven where both of them were drinking at the same place from the afternoon to late. When they were done with their parties, Steven offered a lift to Alan which he accepted. In order to impress Alan, Steven drives the car at a high speed and unfortunately, Steven lost car's control and crashed with a truck which was loaded of Stationary stuff. Both of them got serious injuries and were found unconscious from where they were taken to the hospital (Nottage, 2010). Now, Alan suffered from an injury in the spine and serious hand injury due to which his hand remained stuff and he is not able to go back to his role of Computer technician due to which he is not able to earn and he came to know this after the rehabilitation and treatment (William, 2010). On the other hand, Steven suffered from an injury due to which his leg got fractured and they needed long-term rehabilitation and treatment. This was the incident whereas both of them were drunk, so Steven was criminally charged for drinking and driving. In addition to this, Alan who was injured badly wanted to sue Steven and asking him to compensate for the loss Alan suffered due to Steven's drink and drive issue.
As per the incident that happened, Steven is found guilty because as per the Australian law, drinking and driving or drink and drive is said to be a serious offence and the victim can be charged with penalties. Here Alan was also drunk but he was not driving and has suffered serious injuries. This is a criminal case and Steven can be proven guilty as per the Crimes Act 1900, it is also supposed to be a serious offence in which driving harshly, furiously is not supported and which can cause serious injuries or can harm someone physically. So, Alan wants to charge Steven with this Act. Apart from this, the Crimes Act can make a person pay huge penalties apart from the imprisonment. In addition to this, Steven should also be charged with the Road Transport Act 2013 where driving negligent after drinking is considered a crime as it can cause harm to other people, which also happened in this case as well. Alan wants Steven to be charged with penalties and to compensate him for the time he will not be able to work as he got an injury which won't allow him to work.
The above case is simply a case of drink and drives which has caused serious damage to the truck, to Alan and to the drive, Steven also. These acts are amended. These acts that are Crimes Act 1990 and Road Transport Act 2013 should be applied on Steven so that he can be charged with penalties. The very first thing that should be done in this research is to find out the amount of alcohol in the blood of steven while the accident happened that means at the time of the accident which can help to find out and charge Steven with the right act. In case, if the amount of alcohol was too much that it can be considered a serious offence, then he can be charged with Crimes Act 1990 as per the Australian Law. Apart from this, questions should be asked or both of them should be interrogated in order to find out what was the speed of the car at the time of driving. Then Section 45 of the South Australian Road Traffic Act 1961 states that it was a serious offence and again the driver can be charged with fines, penalties or imprisonment. This section under the section states that driving being drunk and then driving harshly, furiously which can cause physical damage to anyone is a crime and the culprit will have to face the consequences (Nottage, 2010).
As per the case, it is clear that Steven is found guilty of drink and drive under the Crimes Act 1990, Road Traffic Act 2013 and section 45 under the Road Traffic Act 1961. So he should be charged and the victim Alan should be given the compensation of the loss that he has to face and don't know till when he will face as he is not able to continue his job as a Computer Technician just because his hands are seriously injured and which have become stuff and it's hard to make a move of hand (Braithwaite and Vale, 1985). In addition to this, the loss of the truck which was full of Stationary stuff should also be compensated. As Alan wants to file a case and wants to sue Steven, he can file a case and can charge Steven of the above-mentioned acts. In Australia or anywhere in the world, driving furiously, carelessly or even normal driving after having lots of alcohol is considered a serious offence as it can lead to huge damage to the person who is driving the car and to other people who can unintentionally become a part of these types of incident and faces lots of issues (Paterson, 2011).
After analysing the case and properly understanding, the strengths or the strong points that Alan can charge Steven with are driving after being drunk, causing physical damage to himself and Alan which had forced Alan not to work due to the injury and the damage to the truck. Alan can charge Steven on these points with the acts like Crimes Act 1990, Road Transport Act 2013, Road Traffic Act 2013 and even can ask for compensation (Nottage, 2010). But the weak points can be that Alan knew that Steven is drunk way too much, so he would either have refused Steven to take the life or could have asked even Steven to be normal first and take rest after which he could have driven. But Alan did not do anything. So, these can be the weak points of the case which can make Alan lose the case. But for the physical damages and the injuries, Alan has the right to file a case on Steven because as per the Australian law, causing physical damage to others while driving furiously is considered to be a very serious offence and which can lead the victim to pay penalties and imprisonment (Alcosense.com.au., 2019).
The assignment is about the two given case study in which one case is related to the Samsung case and other is related to accident. Jane can file against Samsung in order to get compensation. Jane, who is the victim of the accident that took place because of the BMW alighting fire due to the overheated phone and also Jane suffered from a significant hand burning, is liable to fight against the rights and get compensation for the loss. On the other hand, Steven suffered from an injury due to which his leg got fractured and they needed long-term rehabilitation and treatment. Alan wants Steven to be charged with penalties and to compensate him for the time he will not be able to work as he got an injury which won't allow him to work (William, 2010). The law that has been stated in the Australian Consumer Law that is Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 clearly is in the favour of Jane as this incident has happened due to the manufacturing of the wrong product. Many other incidents have also taken place in several other countries apart from Australia as well due to which many people had to suffer a lot and had to bear huge loss.
