Background
The Smart meter technology is not new to the world. Saskpower commenced its Automated Infrastructure Program in 2010. The main purpose of this technology was to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of metering customers' electricity usage. Saskpower completed its vendor procurements and selected Sensus for supply of meters and AMI technology and Grid One solutions for the installations.
The first field testing began in 2012 in Hanley, SK. After that a lot of meters were installed. In 2014, over a period of three weeks eight meters caught fire. This incident halted the further installation program. Then, the government ordered the removal of all the Sensus smart meters.
To analyse this issue there are a number of reports and analysis …show more content…
Sensus should have explained or even brought into SaskPower's attention about their previous meter failures. This would have given a fair choice to SaskPower to consider a possible risk and make some amendments in contract for the economic and public safety. this could be referred to Sensus's fraudulent misrepresentation.
Overall if SaskPower was in good position with their legal model, they would have approached breach of contract on the basis of their inability to provide a safe consumer product.
SaskPower would also have been entitled to damages.
Termination clause in contract would have been SaskPower's lifeline in the situation. It could have been based on the proper working of the product.
SaskPower should have gone for indemnity. This means the agreement by Sensus to hold the financial losses of SaskPower under certain specified circumstances. Basically, a hold harmless agreement almost like an insurance policy because Sensus owed SaskPower a duty of care.
Sensus also owed fiduciary duty to SaskPower. It is the duty of care for the interest of another party in priority to one's own interest.
The most common is the product liability. Sensus should have practised a proper method of delivering product. SaskPower should have claimed breach of contract when the meter failed and caused possible
The Smart meter technology is not new to the world. Saskpower commenced its Automated Infrastructure Program in 2010. The main purpose of this technology was to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of metering customers' electricity usage. Saskpower completed its vendor procurements and selected Sensus for supply of meters and AMI technology and Grid One solutions for the installations.
The first field testing began in 2012 in Hanley, SK. After that a lot of meters were installed. In 2014, over a period of three weeks eight meters caught fire. This incident halted the further installation program. Then, the government ordered the removal of all the Sensus smart meters.
To analyse this issue there are a number of reports and analysis …show more content…
Sensus should have explained or even brought into SaskPower's attention about their previous meter failures. This would have given a fair choice to SaskPower to consider a possible risk and make some amendments in contract for the economic and public safety. this could be referred to Sensus's fraudulent misrepresentation.
Overall if SaskPower was in good position with their legal model, they would have approached breach of contract on the basis of their inability to provide a safe consumer product.
SaskPower would also have been entitled to damages.
Termination clause in contract would have been SaskPower's lifeline in the situation. It could have been based on the proper working of the product.
SaskPower should have gone for indemnity. This means the agreement by Sensus to hold the financial losses of SaskPower under certain specified circumstances. Basically, a hold harmless agreement almost like an insurance policy because Sensus owed SaskPower a duty of care.
Sensus also owed fiduciary duty to SaskPower. It is the duty of care for the interest of another party in priority to one's own interest.
The most common is the product liability. Sensus should have practised a proper method of delivering product. SaskPower should have claimed breach of contract when the meter failed and caused possible