Court Scenario - Case Study Example

Even when Walt concurs that the fault may have occurred due to improper pre-testing of the machine before being installed at the customer's work site, he (Norm) is not willing to implicate that his company is at fault, obviously to save its reputation and market standing especially, because it is now passing through a very difficult phase. Walt Winters is guilty of not having assessed the technical facts thoroughly, before advising Norm to arrange to replace the machinery. He should have conducted necessary tests and overhauled the machine before passing judgment about it.

There seems to be a clear case of communication gap between the Technical Department and Customer Servicing Department, and lack of clarity about where the realm of technical responsibility ends, and decision making management begins. All along Walt Winters was under the opinion that the matter was a management decision, whereas Norm felt it was a technical one. However under NSPE Code III I A, Engineers Code is violated when: "Engineer does not admit and accept his own errors related to the action, or Engineer distorts or alters the facts in an attempt to justify his errors related to the action.

" (NSPE Code of ethics. 2007). So, if the mistake was on the part of R & M Machinery, the company should not have kept silent and it was obligatory on their part to inform their long-standing customer about the deficiency in their service. Their silence, on a crucial aspect of acceptance of fault for defective machinery, has implicated them in this case.Defense: The deficiency of service on the part of the seller regarding the defective machine has not been conclusively proved, but has just been inferred by the prosecution on circumstantial evidence.

It is quite possible that a perfect machine delivered by R & M Machinery may have been mishandled, or wrongly used by Exes. The fault may have occurred, not due to the inherent defect in the machine, but due to wrong handling or mal-operational techniques, which could have led to the parts being damaged or rendered unsuitable, thus making the machine inoperative. However, the seller has agreed to replace the machine on good faith and it has been done to the full satisfaction of the buyer. Here the economic factor is absent, since no losses or damages have accrued to the plaintiff.

Since no real losses have occurred and the matter has now been amicably settled, the question of any further queries on this issue shall not arise in future. JUDGE: There has been a breach of trust on the part of the seller in not informing the buyer, regarding the actual fault of the machine and the reason for its failure, despite the fact that, with the exercise of due reasonableness and diligence on its part, this could have been done. Prima facie, there seems to be no evidence to suggest that a deviation of Professional Code of Conduct of Engineers has not taken place in this instance.

"In addition to being able to use one's mastery of a professional body of knowledge, this knowledge must be applied consistently, reliably and according to a legal and ethical framework." (Nicole Radziwill.