Law CA A

Law CA
A. The three business structures I will be discussing are sole proprietorships/traders, partnerships and corporations. Starting of with sole proprietorships which is an individual that owns an unincorporated business run and managed by themselves. A partnership is the personal relations between two or more who run or handle a business. Every person gives investments and labour and share the profits of the company. Lastly, corporations being the biggest of them all is a large company/ group of companies that acts as a single entity. A corporation usually has the same deductions as a sole proprietorship as a method to find out it’s taxable income. Like everything, there are advantages and disadvantages for all of these business structures. The advantages of sole proprietorships are first of all that you make decisions for your business because you are your own boss, you also at the end of the day hold onto the profits you make and launching and setting up your business is much simpler when you are a sole trader. The disadvantages however, are you will have unlimited liability for debts because there is not a huge legal difference between personal and business assets and it is also a task to establish when you can take a holiday because you work for yourself essentially. The advantages of partnerships are there would be more of a prominent borrowing capacity than a sole proprietorship/trader, more capital would also be accessible and decision making is shared among each business partner essentially more partners means fresh ideas and less pressure on one person. The disadvantages are of course the most obvious being conflict or disagreement between two partners this cause a rift in the business and overall cause a bad atmosphere which could affect the running of the business. Another one is the fact that partners share the profit of the business equally, this can bring on some problems such as one partner not achieving as much as others and still earning as much as the others. The advantages of a corporation are the owner’s personal assets are protected from debt and corporations have tax free benefits e.g. travel and insurance. The disadvantages are obviously more legal formality as corporations are companies on a larger scale and legal rules and regulations to adhere to. I personally think from reviewing this case that the structure most suited to these group of friends is a partnership and I will explain my reasons for believing that. A sole proprietorship would not work mainly for the simple fact that this is a group of friends and not one person. A partnership does not have as many rules and regulations to adhere to which is why I believe a partnership would fit the group’s plan.
Social Media is an essential part of most people’s days. An extremely negative post or comment about a company or a person can have specific ramifications involving the law and you could possibly have to deal with the legal consequences of it. An untrue statement can cause a lot of harm to a company or person and their reputation, so it may be considered defamatory under the Defamation Act 2009. Even something as simple as retweeting or sharing another person’s negative remarks can be considered as an endorsement which is important enough to create legal action. It states in the Oireachtas that a “defamation statement” includes broadcast on the radio or television or published on the internet which is including in what this friend group is planning on doing. It also states that “There shall be no publication for the purposes of the tort of defamation if the defamatory statement is published to person to whom it relates and to a person other than the person to whom it relates where circumstances where –
(a)it was not intended to that the statement would be published to the second mentioned person and
(b)it was not reasonably foreseeable that publication of the statement to the first mentioned person would result in its being published to the second mentioned person.
The friends plan on going against this law and post most likely false and negative reviews and claim for the reasons of sabotage and destruction of reputation which is illegal.
The Oireachtas also states that “A person that is guilty under this offence shall be liable on”-
(a) On summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €3,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both, or
(b) On conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €50,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to both.
I would not advise these friends to go along with their plan because as you can see there are serious implications to doing what they have planned. They could end up in debt after having to pay for damages or even imprisoned for a period of time. I will further try to prove my point by referencing a defamation case on Facebook that I have studied. In June 2016, judge John O’ Hara presented €75,000 in damages against a man who posted a defamatory remark on Facebook. This is something can happen more often than you think. I also reviewed a serious case in which an employee of British Waterway Boards some nasty and reputation destroying reparks and comments about the company such as “I hate my work” and “It’s not the work it’s the people who ruin it nasty horrible human beings” as much worse comments. The UK’s employment Appeal Tribunal had overturned the original employment tribunals decision and stated that the dismissal was reasonable regardless of the delay. However, British Waterway Boards did get the opportunity to out this employee over their misconduct and negative remarks towards them. This case is an excellent indication into what can happen if you say a negative or false accusation about a company and it is truly a tale of caution for this group of friends.
Consumers do have an abundance of rights when it comes to data protection. A consumer/any person is entitled to the following rights:
1. The right to be informed: (purpose data is kept and the name of the body collecting data)
2. The right to access data: Consumers have the right to know certain information about a company
3. The right to correct or remove the use of your personal data: Consumers should be allowed to erase any data that you have given to a company at any time. If a company does not agree to this, they are in breach of a law and a consumer’s right. If you decide at any point that you want a company to delete any personal info, they have of you they should comply.
4. The right to not receive any direct marketing material: You should be allowed to opt out of any promotional emails or texts in any company. A breach of this can result in an offence.
5. The right to complain to DPC. If you feel as though a company has breached one of these rights outlined, you have the right to complain to the DPC and they will investigate further.
6. The right to object to the use of your info: You should have the right to not have your personal info used in any way. Data Commissioners may not use these details if you don’t agree to it.
7. The right to attain and process the information justly.
8. The right to to keeping and using information for the one and only reason you agreed to and no other purposes for personal gain.
9. The right to process the data specifically in a way that is compatible with for which it was intended.
10. The right to keeping your personal information safe and secure: A company could get into serious trouble and face terrible ramifications if any consumer’s personal info or bank details got leaked.
11. The right to keep personal data correct and up to date as false information about a consumer can cause problems.
12. The right to making sure is relevant and not excessive or considered possible spamming.
13. The right to holding onto information or data no longer than stated by the company itself.

A lot of times these consumer rights are breached, and consumers aren’t always aware of their rights and how they are being breached. Breaching these rights can lead to quite a serious consequence. Maximum fine for a first offence in breaching these rights is €3000 for summary convictions and €60,000 for convictions on indictment. Considering these rights, the group of friend’s plans is not going to be legally successful as they are in breach of these rights outlined above. They plan to use people’s personal information when consumers have the right to protect their personal information for personal gain which can definitely wind them up in legal trouble for these actions they have planned.
Occupier’s Liability Act is an act that has been in place since July 17th, 1995. The common law before this act governing the occupier’s liability in 1867 was structuring according the laissez-faire philosophy. In previous law, entrants were summarised according to the benefit the conferred on their occupier.
1. Contractual Issues: the role of the occupier was in previous law described by the terms of the of the contract, or in the absence of an express term, there was an implied duty upon the occupier to make sure that the premises were secure.
2. Invitees: The role imposed on the occupier was to use rational care to stop damages from happening from unusual danger.
3. Licensees: This role imposed on the occupier was to make sure that they were hidden dangers upon the premises/ surrounding area
4. Trespassers: The occupier had to not act in a way that was intended or motivated to injure anyone or act in a reckless fashion.
As of the year 1995 these occupier liability rules have changed. Occupiers now have a responsibility to enforce care towards people who enter the place they own taking away any contractual relationships that could exist between them. Under the eyes of the law an occupier is described as a person exercising control over the condition of their premises and are liable for any accidents that could happen in their premises. The defining quality of an occupier is the absolute element of control over the premises that is involved. It is not necessary that occupier owns the premises in question, but they must have control over what state or condition the premises is in. There is something also known as a duty of care that occupier has to fulfil and owe to certain people. This includes the fact that a visitor who steps foot inside the premises with the permission of the occupier as of right or implied by contract. It also includes a recreational user who visits the premises for the reasoning of recreational activities without a charge with or without the occupier’s permission. Visitors are of course offered a duty of care that they and their property do not suffer any injuries by reason of any danger or hazards existing within the premises. In all cases warnings from occupier’s may be enough to release them from any liability to all individuals entering the premises. After analysing the friend’s plan, they really need to take the occupier’s liability act in consideration as they have not mentioned it in their plan and all companies need to have this act in place. By the sounds of the description of their front office it sounds like its in bad shape and is a safety hazard due to the lack of a handrail. They could get into legal trouble if somebody gets injured so this something the need to reconsider.