What is the omission (failure to act) in this case?
Hint: From Maxrun part for not giving back the hard drive, which means conduct could be established
Answer:
According to my understandings, Maxrun was failed to provide proper services to customer Otto Gunter. The customer Gunter has followed a proper procedure to repair or replaced his crashed hard drive. He submits his hard drive which was crashed because of certain reasons at repair department of the Maxrun. Now during that time, repair department was working on lots of repair or replaced claims. Because of this, the repair department mistakenly misplaces the Gunter’s hard drive with the hard drive of another customer Gottmilik. So Gunter received the wrong hard drive which was not his. …show more content…
First aspect is related to the company Maxrun. The hard drive was misplaced by the mistake of repair department of the Maxrun. It was the duty of the Maxrun to give back the Gunter’s original hard drive. It is not an acceptable reason that the hard drive was misplaced mistakenly just because of lots of claim made at the same time by the customers of Maxrun. To provide the effective services and managing all things is a core duty of the company Maxrun. So the negligence of the duty is mainly conducted by the company …show more content…
In response letter to Gunter, it is mentioned that all owners of the Maxrun product Nimbus 2002 (which was also owned by customer Gunter) were reminded by the company to make a back up of their data. Here we can see that the duty is performed by Maxrun in a proper way. In this regard, the negligence of the duty was conducted by the customer Gunter because he did not act seriously to this reminder of making back up. If Gunter would have make a back up of his data of hard drive, than this whole situation would not happened. But we can’t say that this is the main negligence of duty because this not main reason which cause a loss of $800 to Gunter. The loss of $800 was because of the negligence of the duty conducted by repair department of the Maxrun. So regarding the misconduct of the duty conducted by Maxrun, following factors were
Hint: From Maxrun part for not giving back the hard drive, which means conduct could be established
Answer:
According to my understandings, Maxrun was failed to provide proper services to customer Otto Gunter. The customer Gunter has followed a proper procedure to repair or replaced his crashed hard drive. He submits his hard drive which was crashed because of certain reasons at repair department of the Maxrun. Now during that time, repair department was working on lots of repair or replaced claims. Because of this, the repair department mistakenly misplaces the Gunter’s hard drive with the hard drive of another customer Gottmilik. So Gunter received the wrong hard drive which was not his. …show more content…
First aspect is related to the company Maxrun. The hard drive was misplaced by the mistake of repair department of the Maxrun. It was the duty of the Maxrun to give back the Gunter’s original hard drive. It is not an acceptable reason that the hard drive was misplaced mistakenly just because of lots of claim made at the same time by the customers of Maxrun. To provide the effective services and managing all things is a core duty of the company Maxrun. So the negligence of the duty is mainly conducted by the company …show more content…
In response letter to Gunter, it is mentioned that all owners of the Maxrun product Nimbus 2002 (which was also owned by customer Gunter) were reminded by the company to make a back up of their data. Here we can see that the duty is performed by Maxrun in a proper way. In this regard, the negligence of the duty was conducted by the customer Gunter because he did not act seriously to this reminder of making back up. If Gunter would have make a back up of his data of hard drive, than this whole situation would not happened. But we can’t say that this is the main negligence of duty because this not main reason which cause a loss of $800 to Gunter. The loss of $800 was because of the negligence of the duty conducted by repair department of the Maxrun. So regarding the misconduct of the duty conducted by Maxrun, following factors were