Introduction In the following report‚ myself and group members have been instructed to act as consultants analysing the service encounter in video 2‚ making use of one or more of the blueprinting modelling techniques. The models used in this report are servquals and service blueprinting. In a challenging and highly competitive market in which service industries proliferate‚ service quality is of paramount importance and essentially encompasses the differences between service expectations and
Premium Customer Customer service Service
Concurrent liability Text [13.45] – [13.65]‚ [13.80] – [13.120] Vicarious liability is the liability of an employer for a tort committed by an employee within the course of employment Stevens v Brodribb sawmilling the existence of control between an employer and employee is not enough to prove a relationship for vicarious liability. Further criteria such as obligation to work‚ hours to work etc is also considered Elazac pty ltd v Sheriff the plaintiff was not an employee but a contractor
Premium Tort law Tort
4.0 INTRODUCTION Occupiers’ liability generally refers to the duty owed by land owners to those who come onto their land. However‚ the duty imposed on land owners can extend beyond simple land ownership and in some instances the landowners may transfer the duty to others‚ hence the term occupier rather than owner. The term occupier itself is misleading since physical occupation is not necessary for liability to arise. Occupiers’ liability is perhaps a distinct form of negligence in that there must
Premium Tort law Tort
Misunderstandings happen often in both personal lives as well as in the workplace. It can be difficult to communicate and get through the misunderstandings but it can be done with patience and a calm approach. The first misunderstanding I experienced was when I work for an aircraft repair station. There were two employees that were working together. Employee “A” was a fifty year old Korean man with a thick accent and a pushy personality who happened to be our Master Mechanic. Employee “B” was a
Premium Nut American films Writing
nop Synopsis of Tort Cases Myrtis Davis‚ Gloria Pettis‚ Yolanda Williams‚ Kareemot Olorunoje Business 415 10/18/2011 Karl Triebel Synopsis of Tort Cases As stated by the text a tort is a wrong that either intentional or unintentional (Cheeseman‚ 2010). The following are four scenarios each compiled of circumstances that exhibit various torts. Team B will identify the torts of each scenario while addressing the reasoning behind our selections and the parties that could potentially file
Premium Tort Negligence
CASE ONE: LAW OF TORT An accident was occurred by the car driven by Azhar with the disabled lorry which has been stalled by Ah Chan. Two of these persons have made their own fault as what happened on case Ramachandran a/l Mayandy v. Abdul Rahman bin Ambok. First of all‚ Azhar has derived his vehicle along a state road at slightly above the speed limit and his vehicle was equipped with a seatbelt but Azhar was not wearing it at the time of the collision. In addition‚ the impact of the collision
Premium Tort Common law Negligence
This paper will discuss the hypothetical scenario and case problem 4.4 and its implications on unintentional tort or negligence. It can be found on page 124 of our textbook Business Law Today: Essentials‚ written by Roger LeRoy Miller and Gaylord A. Jentz. As read in the case‚ “Kim went to Ling ’s Market to pick up a few items for dinner. It was a rainy‚ windy day‚ and the wind had blown water through the door of Ling ’s Market each time the door opened. As Kim entered through the door‚ she slipped
Premium Law Tort Tort law
liability. In Donoghue v Stevenson‚ friends of Mrs. Donoghue bought her a bottle of ginger beer‚ which contained a composed snail and caused Mrs. Donoghue to be ill. Since Mrs. Donoghue did not buy the beer‚ she could not sue under contract law but in tort. The Court held that manufacturer owed duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue and that duty was breached. The rationales behind were that Mrs. Donoghue should have had in their mind as being influenced by their careless behavior. People owe duty of care to
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law
Review June‚ 1997 W. Page Keeton Symposium on Tort Law MIXED THEORIES OF TORT LAW: AFFIRMING BOTH DETERRENCE AND CORRECTIVE JUSTICE Gary T. Schwartza Copyright (c) 1997 Texas Law Review Association; Gary T. Schwartz Introduction Currently there are two major camps of tort scholars. One understands tort liability as an instrument aimed largely at the goal of deterrence‚ commonly explained within the framework of economics. The other looks at tort law as a way of achieving corrective justice between
Premium Tort Negligence
TORT‚ PRODUCT LIABILITY‚ INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY‚ CRIMINAL and PROPERTY LAW CASE ANALYSIS TORT CASE OVERVIEW LEGAL ASPECTS 535 PROFESSOR T. RICE MEMORANDUM TO: Professor T. Rice FROM: RE: Denny v. Ford Motor Company (Tort Law) FILE: Court of Appeals of New York‚ 1995 639 N.Y.S. 2d 250 DATE: April 6‚ 2014 Conclusion: Nancy Denny (Plaintiff) was driving her Ford Bronco II in June of 1986‚ when she slammed on the brakes to avoid hitting a deer that had walked in front of her vehicle
Premium Strict liability Tort Contract