Mototete Vs Visorworld Pty Ltd Award Determination

Award Determination

Student’s Name:

Institutional Affiliation: 

Mototete Vs Visorworld Pty Ltd Award Determination

The case presented here involves Mototete who is the claimant and Visorworld as the respondent. The dispute was filed by the claimant on account of the dangers that the claimant had suffered as a result of conducting business with the respondent. The respondent had sold to the claimant motorcycle visors which were deemed shatter-resistant and the same had been sold together with the helmet by the claimant to a customer. The customer had been involved in an accident leading to loss of eyesight and job opportunity. The client sought compensation from the claimant because he bought the helmet from them and thus was liable for the damages that he had suffered. The claimant on his part agreed to the request of the client upon which compensation of $2,000,000 was agreed and paid. The accident resulted in massive losses for the claimant as most of the people shunned the company in terms of buying their helmets. The claimant is known for producing good helmets that provide a sense of safety to the clients and this is the reason that most of the clients and the respondents had engaged with them.

The aftermath of the accident resulted in the loss of sales for the claimant and this resulted in them offering credit notes to maintain their customers. The losses that were suffered as a result of the credit notes were also significant for the claimant and thus the reason for seeking redress. The claimant had sought that it be determined that the claimant suffered loss and damages as a result of the breach of contract by the respondent. The claimant also sought compensation totaling $12,000,000 as a result of the losses suffered.in determining this dispute, it is important to note that all facts and evidence that were availed during the hearing sessions have been considered and critically analyzed. The judgment took into consideration all the witness statements and the evidence submitted by the counsels. The consideration of facts and application of the law is determined below.

Mototete which is a motorcycle helmet producing company entered into a contract with Visorworld who is the producer of motorcycle visors on 10th May 2017. The contract that was formulated between them was due to last for one year upon which the parties were at liberty to discuss an extension. Through the contract, the respondent was supposed to deliver to the claimant visors that were to be fixed in their helmets. The claimant decided to undertake business with the respondent on the knowledge that the respondent had assured of the visors being shatter-resistant thus enhancing the safety of the clients. This is a matter that was clearly outlined in the contract where the respondent sought to assure the claimant that they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the visors supposed to them were shatter-resistant. The claimant on his part relied on the contract clause to engage with the respondent. According to the claimant, this was proof enough of the commitment of the respondent to provide visors that were shatter-resistant and which could protect the customers in case of an accident. The confidence that the claimant had in regards to the visors was the sole reason that they engaged in a contract and the good performance that the claimant was having in terms of selling the product.

There is also the issue of the information that was put on the respondent's website. Through its website, the respondent advertised how its visor was manufactured to ensure that they were safe to use and that the motorcyclists should feel reassured that they would not suffer any visor-related injury. There was also mention of a special non shatter varnish that was applied to strengthen the thick plastic bond material. The claimant has also exclusively relied on this information to decide on the contract(Clarkson, & Miller, 2020). According to the law, contracts are binding agreements upon which two parties are required to fulfill certain obligations. The claimant had every right to rely on the information from the respondent in terms of the website and the contract. This is because the respondent was advertising themselves and therefore know very well that the information that they put either in their website or on the contract would inform the decision of people including the claimant. During the proceeding, the respondent sought to insinuate that the claimant relied more on the website as opposed to the contract. The court would wish to state that organizations are liable for any information that they put out on their websites or through other forms of advertisement. The information is intended to reach out to the potential client and make them convinced about the products. Therefore, it would be wrong to imply that the claimant should not rely on the website information as it is exclusively owned by the respondent.

The respondent has also sought to disapprove the notion that the information portrayed by them indicated that they were only providing shatter-resistant visors and not shatterproof. This is an argument that has been laid before and which the contract has been used to substantiate the claims. On this claim, I would wish to disapprove based on the following argument. The respondent through their contract and website reassured the potential customers including the claimant that the product or visors that they were producing were shatter-resistant and that they should not at all be worried about any injury. The fact that they mentioned or assured the clients that they would not suffer any injuries whenever there is an accident seems to override the notion that they had not exclusively stated that the visors would not shatter. The claimant purchased the visors on the knowledge that the visors would not shatter and that its client would be safe at all times (Cross, & Miller, 2020). The choice of words was also significant as they could have opted to indicate that the visors that they were offering could after all shatter but would in turn reduce the injuries. This was not the case and therefore the claimant had every right to depend solely on the reassurance given by the respondent.

During the exanimation of the witnesses, the managing director of Mototete outlined how the company has suffered significant losses as a result of the accident. The claimant reported that its sales had dipped by 30% and that most of the clients were shunning the company. This was further affirmed by the focus groups that were held which indicated that the client was disappointed by the company and that they had even started throwing away their helmets and opted for the rival companies. This is a matter that is directly attributed to the shattering of the visors which is apricot of the respondent. The claimant had also suffered loss as a result of compensating the client and attributed all the fault to the respondent. On analysis of this, the court finds that indeed the claimant has suffered losses which can be attributed to the visor sold by the respondent as evidenced by the civil bill in which the customer who had an accident was compensated. The defense team put to task the witness in explaining the number of accidents portrayed in the newspaper and which involved the claimant. The claimant agreed that four out of the five accidents were a result of the cracking of the fiberglass body of the helmet and only one involved the visor.

Through this notion, the respondent sought to lay the blame on the claimant. As far as this is concerned, I am convinced that the case at hand involves the issue of the visor shattering as opposed to the well-being of the helmet. The accident was attributed to the shattering of the visor which is a product of the respondent. Therefore, they cannot claim to use the issue of the helmet in other cases as a reprieve against the dispute. There is also mention of the contract not being renewed. The events that preceded the case arose after the conclusion of the contract.it is interesting to note however that both the claimant and the respondent did not sign another agreement but further agreed to engage in the provision of the visor. This leads us to the matter of the validity of a contract. The law of contract simply states that a contract is a binding agreement between two parties(O'Sullivan, 2020). The contract can either be oral or in writing. In regards to this dispute, the claimant and the respondent both entered into an oral agreement soon after the completion of the written agreement. Therefore, it is important to state that the two were legally bound by their actions and thus any party is free to sue the other for any breach of contract. The contract and subsequent section 55 do not exist in writing but are an understood mutual agreement that the respondent will continue providing the safe visors. Therefore, the issue of there being a contract is neither here nor there.

The judgment also took into consideration the testimony of Aiden which was the one involved in the accident. Through his testimony, he mentioned how he nearly lost his eyesight completely due to the numerous shafts of visors that were in his eyes. He had to undergo several surgeries to correct this but still could not get back his eyesight. This further affirmed the issue of the visor which shattered during the accident. The respondent also tried to argue that Aiden was over speeding and had a backup of an eyewitness. They pinned the witness on his marriage problem and the cause for the accident. It is important to note that the question of what caused the accident does not hold any water. This is because the material component of the case involved whether or not the visor was safe and which would assure the riders their safety. This is a matter that is immaterial to the case and therefore dismissed.

The examination chief also confirmed before the parties that although he could not confirm the originality of the shards, the victim has indeed suffered shard damage which is directly attributed to the visors. This is another proof of the shattering of the visor which goes against the declaration of the respondent. The examination in chief also disputed any notion that there could be plastic that could not shatter. In his testimony, he indicated that based on the experience that he had, he indicated that no plastic could withstand such a trauma. He further affirmed that plastic was plastic and nothing of the sort could prevent it from shattering. The examination in chief also asserted that he had never had any special varnish that could make plastic much stronger.It was his firm belief that there was nothing that could be done to the plastic that would make it defy the kind of force that is normally witnessed whenever there is a accident. Therefore, according to his testimony, the respondent had managed to hoodwink most of its client including the claimant.

Given the evidence presented and the submissions that were made by both the respondent and the claimant, it is of the view that the respondent is libeled for damages suffered by the claimant. The respondent with full knowledge falsified information regarding the safety of the visors that it was producing and this caused severe damage to the reputation of the claimant.it is therefore ruled that the claimant's request for damages as a result of the breach of contract by the respondent is granted. The claimant is also awarded a sum totaling $12,000,000 as compensation for the loss of business and the damage of its reputation as a result of dealing with the respondent. Thirdly, the respondent is also instructed to pay interest at an appropriate rate based on the sum of the claim that the claimant is awarded for a date that will be determined by a tribunal. Lastly, I further direct that the expenses of the arbitration process are to be awarded to the respondent in full. 

References

Clarkson, K. W., & Miller, R. L. (2020). Business law: Text and cases. Cengage Learning.

Cross, F. B., & Miller, R. L. (2020). The legal environment of business: Text and cases. Cengage Learning.

O'Sullivan, J. (2020). O'Sullivan and Hilliard's the Law of Contract. Oxford University Press.

To View The Complete Question See Below