The Application of Concepts and Theories on Business Invitees and a Question of Ethics

Introduction

Given liability to business invitees as seen in the case of Kim's injury, Ling's can be held accountable for negligence. Ling's action of failing to post a warning sign of a slippery held them negligent. The business owner did not show care to customers in a legally recognized manner, a situation that led to Kim's injury. As per the mutual benefit theory, Kim entered the market with the aim of purchasing dinner items while Ling's on the other side was to benefit from the purchase of goods by making a profit. As a result, both Kim and Ling's are in a mutual benefit relationship from the transaction, a situation that requires care for the interests of either party. In enabling the invitee to benefit from the business owner, Ling's would have shown concern by alerting customers on the danger of slippery floor caused by storms.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The other reason why Ling's is held responsible for negligence is a breach of duty. Ling's has the responsibility of protecting customers from risks like injuries due to falling. Ling's had to show the highest duty of care to customers. As per the concept of invitee care, the premise owner had the role of caring for any invite in the premise. Ling's did not protect invitees from harm due to negligence indicating a breach of duty. The conduct of Ling's of failing to warn customers of a slippery floor is below that of a prudent individual. As a reasonably prudent person, Ling's would have reduced the risk of injury to Kim by warning her about a slippery floor. From the information, Ling's is held accountable for Kim's harm for negligence as shown by a breach of duty.

In reference of wrongful interference in the competition for customers between White Plain coats & and Cintas, the two policies that are odds are predatory behavior and competitive practices. First, a competitive action is a public policy that offers a favorable condition for competitors to win customers in the market through activities like an advertisement. As per the case, Cintas advertised its business to customers and won White Plains' clients. White Plains' customers breached the contract because of Cintas' efforts of soliciting business for winning consumers. Predatory behavior as a second odd policy is whereby the actions by an individual are unlawful with the intention of making ineffective the ability of the competitor to compete in the marketplace. About the incident, there are chances the use of unlawful actions by Cintas were to cause White Plains' customers to breach their contract.

In case of a contractual relationship between the competitor and customers, competition practice requires priority. Prioritization of a competitive behavior helps the competitors to advertise for its business in a legally abiding manner. For instance, a plaintiff has to show a contract with consumers while the defendant has to show the intention of winning clients with no chances of causing the customers to breach their contract. Consequently, competitive practice is a permissible wrong interference than predatory because it has low chances of violating a contract of customers.

Conclusion

I believe that if the primary interest of a competitor is soliciting business with the aim of economic gains, there are no defense claims for wrongful interference in an existing contractual relationship. From the case between White Plains Coats & Apron, Cintas showed malice with the intention of causing the consumers to violate their contracts. As a result, soliciting business with a purpose of inducing customers to break their agreement with a competitor is unethical.