Non Linear Pro-Is a Company That Sells

Non Linear Pro-is a company that sells editing equipment. Recently, the company was involved in a transaction that involved the lease of equipment to Quick Text Video on a trial basis. Before the purchase, the sales representative for NonLinear Pro and the company manger for Quick Text Video discussed the pros and cons of the product. The salesman indicated that the system would be up and running within a day in a half of delivery and that it would be twice as fast as the current system in use at Quick Text Video. The system was delivered, including a delivery document for the signature of the recipient. The document included a lease agreement for three months.

Quick Text Video attempted to use the equipment for two weeks. However, it was not performing properly for a number of reasons, the first and most obvious of which was that the promise of the equipment functioning within a day and a half was not kept. The product therefore did not function properly as promised, did not cut the work in half, and in addition also injured a worker at Quick Text Video.

For these reasons, the company contacted NonLinear Pro-to return the product. However, the latter sent a bill for the amount of $5,000 for the three-month lease period, as stated on the lease agreement that was signed at the delivery of the equipment. In legal terms NonLinear Pro-does carry some product liability, since it did not perform as promised and caused an injury. There is therefore a tort violation as a result of worker injury. The worker who was injured was Jane, who cut her finger on the sharp edge of the equipment. The injury was infected and she was obliged to visit a doctor, incurring a loss of worker hours for the company and wages for her, while also costing medical bills.

Criterion 1 & Criterion 2

The tort liability chosen for discussion in this case includes misrepresentation of product quality. Statements made by the salesman for Non-Linear Pro-were accepted as fact regarding the equipment prior to accepting its lease for the trial period. One of these statements was that "Any of your editors, if they're computer savvy, will pick this up in a day, day and a half tops." As stated, "The people at the company used the product for more than half a day, they read the manuals, and they were not able to figure out how to use the product. So clearly the product did not live up to the standard that was set forth in the express warranty."

There was therefore a clear discrepancy between what was promised and what was delivered.

In addition, another tort includes liability for physical injury. At the start of the video, for example, Jane cut her hand as she was reaching for the software CD. She stated a wish for a warning label regarding dangerous sharp edges. This could be related to negligence or product liability as a result of an injury that might have been prevented with the appropriate warning, because those "manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause." (White, 2006) No warning was provided with this product, which means the company is liable for the injury. In addition, the same person, Jane, cut her hand again when trying to insert and remove the discs from the machine.

The product itself also did not work as originally promised, either in terms of functionality or within the specified time frame. This occurred after company representatives performed due diligence with the product and software. They remain unable to complete the job even after the appropriate training, manual reading, and application of knowledge to the actual product. A tort of possible fraud is created by this situation, along with strict liability. Since strict liability focuses on the product itself, "under strict liability, the manufacturer is liable if the product is defective, even if the manufacturer was not negligent in making that product defective." (White, 2006) The product in question was clearly defective, and the manufacturer is liable. The quality of the product was clearly misrepresented. The sales representative mentioned that the product could be learned within a day or day and a half. This was clearly not the case, as employees spent much more time in training and were still not able to complete the task. Specific claims made by the representative were also called into question when compared to the performance of the product. The quality of the product, for example, was much lower than expected, the software was unable to complete tasks or hold the amount of memory needed, and company time was wasted rather than saved. The employees mentioned that the software and hardware frequently crashed and had many bugs. In short, they claimed that no production company would be able to edit videos using this product. Indeed, it took two weeks of unsuccessful attempts to arrive at a level of use that was promised to take no longer than one and a half day. The failed promises of functionality, productivity, and ease of learning are grounds for breach of contract. The above-mentioned torts apply; the product has been misrepresented, and breach of warranty applies.

When offering products to companys, salespeople need to take special care of what is said and how it is said. Factual information needs to be in hand to substantiate claims. "Intentional misrepresentation occurs when a seller or lessor either (1) affirmatively misrepresents the quality of a product or (2) conceals a defect in it. Because most reputable manufacturers, sellers, and lessors do not intentionally misrepresent the quality of their products, fraud is not often used as the basis for product liability actions" (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 95)

Criterion 3

Enterprise Risk Management