Robins and Robins, Case Study Example

Indemnity can be described as an obligation of making good any liability, damage or loss incurred by another party. In indemnity, one party to the contract holds the other party to the contract harmless for some damage or loss. In this case, the first defense Casings, Inc. will have is that there was a clause in the contract indemnifying it from defects beyond the cost of the supplied parts. Therefore, Casings, Inc. can argue that they are only liable to the extent of the supply they made to Robins & Robins and not to the extent of the consumers of the products. The second defense will be that Robins & Robins entered into a contract with Casings, Inc. willingly without being coerced and they read all the clauses in the contract and were in agreement with them before signing the contract. This means that they were aware of this clause and they were comfortable with it hence going against it will amount to breach of contract (Sanbar & American College of Legal Medicine, 2007).

A contract refers to a concurrence that is lawfully enforceable between two parties or more with mutual obligations. Damages is the remedy that exists at law for breaching a contract. The other remedy is monetary compensation. In equity, an injunction or specific performance of the contract, are the remedies. Both the law and equitable remedies award the party that is damaged the benefit of the contract bargain or expectation damages. These damages are greater than simple reliance damages, like in promissory estoppels.

The specifics are that while Casings, Inc. and Robins & Robins contracted, they ensured that the stated in Section 14B, which states that the solution to defects within supplies are supposed to be restricted to the charge of the parts that have been supplied. Vitiating factors, which constitute defenses to the purported formation of the contract include, duress and unconscionability.  The fact that the products of Casings, Inc. are damaged makes the contract unconscionable (Bruner, 2007). Robins & Robins company has a right of mitigating the damages caused to the company. The company can also sue for undue influence due to the clause 14B.2.a that was inserted in the contract, frustration of purpose or misrepresentation.

Any rule’s validity can be determined upon petitioning for a declaratory judgment directed to the Court upon being alleged that the particular rule, either interferes with, impairs, immediately threatens to impair or interfere with, the privileges or the legal rights of the petitioner. Robins & Robins can argue on this ground because the rule applies to it retroactively hence interfering with its privileges and legal rights. They can also argue that the FDA acted unconstitutionally because they imposed a retroactive rule that was only applicable to Robins & Robins hence it was discriminatory (Bruner, 2007).

Another ground for challenging a regulation of an agency involves a requirement that a regulation can cease to apply if there was no application of the APA’s public input or comment, publication and notice, requirements by the agency. The procedures for making rules should be adhered to in order for the process of regulation and the rules resulting to be valid. An agency seeking public comment for drafting of legislation purpose cannot then change the legislation into a rule subsequent to the comment period (Widener University, 2003). In this case, Robins & Robins can argue that the agency did not follow due process in making the “tracking bar” requirement applicable to them. There was no public input or comment, there was no publication and there was no notice before the implementation of the order by the FDA.

Two major theories that would be applicable to this case are the negligence theory and the tort liability theory. A case not in favor of Robins & Robins, the legal responsibility of the strict tort in 402A would be applicable because Robins & Robins Company, the seller, sold a product that caused harm to customers. This liability will still stand regardless of the existence of contractual limitations indemnifying the seller and regardless of the seller taking the necessary precautions and measures. In supporting this case, it would be essential to present the children and all the people affected by the products and those who perished as a result of the inadequate tests of the drugs by Robins & Robins and defective manufacturing (Sanbar & American College of Legal Medicine, 2007).

Due to the very strong nature of the case against Robins & Robins, they might not be able to have a defense for the suit against them. However, Robins & Robins can argue that there was contributory negligence by Casings, Inc. because they were involved in supplying the products to Robins & Robins. Therefore, Robins & Robins can make a claim of contributory negligence against Casings, Inc.

A neglect case has the capacity to be filed in opposition to the FDA. This is because their actions led to people being exposed to harm. They owe the public a duty to protect them from harmful products from various companies. They had a duty to subject Robins & Robins to the tracking bar rule in order for the wellbeing of the customers, as well as the public. The FDA can also be held liable for the acts of their employee who was bribed. However, the FDA can argue that the employee was acting individually and not under the FDA. This defense might not succeed because the employee is liable criminally but professionally, the FDA is liable for his actions because it has control over its employees (Widener University, 2003).

For Casings, Inc., a case of contributory negligence can be instituted against them. This is because they were the producers of the products that caused harm to the consumers. Despite the fact that they were not the direct suppliers of the products, they contributed in the negligence which led to many people becoming sick and others dying, Casings, Inc. will not have a defense against this suit.

After taking the civic comments, the FDA will propagate the absolute regulation. Then, whichever interested party has the ability to dispute the regulation legitimacy within court. The party has an extremely intricate burden to meet, and the party would probably fail. A party can dispute a regulation given that it is subjective and capricious. This needs the bureau to provide substantiation that supports the anticipated regulation. The second way to dispute a regulation is by claiming that the rule is outside the bureau authority. It is difficult to substantiate since the majority of bureaus stay inside authority set for them within their facilitating acts. If Robins did not take part within the comments, then the situation would be different. The exhaustion of solutions to a predicament needs that every existing step be pursued within the bureau’s procedures prior to taking legal action. These regulations are important to prevent court overloading with queries that may not even be arguments by when the bureaus conclude what their closing orders or verdicts will be (Sanbar & American College of Legal Medicine, 2007).

References

Bruner, P. L. (2007). Managing and litigating the complex surety case. Chicago, Ill.: Tort and Insurance Practice Section, American Bar Association.

Sanbar, S. S., & American College of Legal Medicine. (2007). Legal medicine. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby/Elsevier.

Widener University. (2003). Widener law journal. Harrisburg, Pa.: Widener University School of Law.