Bionics Inc. Manufactures Case Study - Products Manufactured by Bionics - Business Assignment Help

Assignment Task :

Assignment Instructions

PART A – 20 marks

Read the following case scenario and respond to the questions that follow.

Case Scenario:

Bionics Inc. manufactures custom robotics for factories in Ontario.  

With every customer, Bionics Inc. has a standard contract.  Each contract with a customer includes the following terms:

• Products manufactured by Bionics Inc. are built in accordance with provincial regulations and shall be tested for compliance with such requirements prior to shipment

• Products manufactured by Bionics Inc. are built to customer specifications and warranted to operate, free of any defect, for at least one year

• The warranty provided by Bionics Inc. specifically excludes, any alteration, misbranding or failure to meet specifications resulting from any work done, or activities undertaken, by the customer or its subcontractors after the product is shipped from Bionics Inc.

• Customers must promptly inform Bionics Inc. of any complaint in writing and provide all reasonable assistance to Bionics Inc. in investigating complaints that are alleged to have arisen from manufacture or packaging of the product

In July 2020, a new customer, Austin Aeronautics Inc., ordered a custom robot from Bionics Inc.  

The robot was completed on October 2, 2020.  The robot was delivered on October 9, 2020 to Austin Aeronautics Inc. and installed by Bionics Inc. employees.

Three weeks after delivery and installation, a representative of Austin Aeronautics Inc. contacted Bionics Inc. to report that the robot had very seriously malfunctioned.  While malfunctioning, the robot had destroyed another machine nearby, and had very nearly killed a factory worker.  Austin Aeornautics Inc. is threatening to sue Bionics Inc.

Bionics Inc. brought the robot back to its business premise and examined it closely.  Staff at Bionics Inc. discovered that a number of bolts provided to Bionics Inc. by a supplier, Geegaw Inc., had snapped in two.  

Bionics Inc. has a long-term supply contract with Geegaw Inc.  Under this contract, bolts were supposed to be made from tungsten, which is one of the hardest metals available.  While examining the robot from Austin Aeronautics Inc., Bionics Inc. now discovered that Geegaw Inc. had switched to bolts that were partially made of lead, a softer and cheaper metal.  Geegaw Inc. did not notify Bionics Inc. of this change.  

Workers in the factory at Bionics Inc. either did not notice the change or did not notify anyone in management of the change before using the bolts in the robots.  The robot had somehow passed inspection with lead bolts before being sent to Austin Aeronautics Inc.

On further inspection, staff at Bionics Inc. also suspect that Austin Aeronautics Inc. may have either moved or modified the robot after it had been installed by Bionics Inc.  

Questions:

1. a)  What is the tort in the above scenario?     

b)  How does the case scenario fit the elements of the tort you have identified? 
 

2.  a)  How many contracts are there in the above case scenario?  (1 mark)

b)  What is the contract issue in the above scenario?  

c)  How does the case scenario fit the contract issue you have identified? 

3.  What defences against liability, in tort law and in contract law, might be available to Bionics Inc.?  Explain your reasoning   

 

PART B – 

Read the following case scenario and respond to the questions that follow.

Case Scenario

The Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Health has responded to the public opioid crisis, which has seen a rise in addictions and deaths from the overuse of prescription drugs containing dangerously addictive substances based on opium. The Government of Ontario has passed new legislation that bans doctors from prescribing all such drugs for the relief of pain experienced by patients. The government claims that there are reasonable and effective alternative drug therapies available, that do not present the same level of risk. 

Mirabelle Smith is a cancer patient who experiences terrible pain from her illness. In order to relieve this pain and to help her function normally, her treating physician Dr. Floyd had prescribed an opioid-based medication. No other medication or treatment had proved to be effective for Ms. Smith. Dr. Floyd is concerned that Ms. Smith’s life would be so intolerable without the medication that she might commit suicide. 

The legislation passed by the Government of Ontario is within its constitutional law-making powers. However, Ms. Smith wishes to challenge the new law on the ground that it violates her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

Questions

1.  Which Charter right might be violated by this law?  Explain your reasons. 

2.  There are a number of potential individuals and organizations willing to undertake this Charter challenge in court. What conditions would each of the following potential claimants have to satisfy in order to be accepted by the court as having standing to bring the challenge? What is the likelihood of success for each of them in establishing standing?  

a) Mirabelle Smith  
b) The Canadian Civil Liberties Union, a non-profit organization dedicated to the support of individual right

This Business Assignment has been solved by our Business  Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.