Congratulations on your appointment as manager of operations for Trans-Global Corporation in Vancouver. The date is January 5, 2020. As you settle into your new office, your secretary tells you that there are a few files on the desk that you might want to look through sooner rather than later. 

You discover that Trans-Global has some issues with special metal tubing that it had shipped by ocean ship from the United Kingdom. Trans-Global had ordered 16 tubes at $175,000 per tube. When they arrived on February 27, 2019, they were contained in four huge containers - 4 tubes to a container. Each tube weighed 5,000 kg. When they arrived, the tubes had significant rust and showed signs of contact with salty water. Trans-Global's engineer has concluded that the coils are now good only for scrap. You review the bill of lading that is on file. You see that the bill of lading:

1. Is a clean bill of lading

2. Indicates 4 packages with 4 coils per package

3. Does not include a declaration of value

4. States that all disputes should be resolved by the UK courts in the United Kingdom.

As no notice has yet ben given, you think about giving notice to the carrier and filing suit in British Columbia.

In order to get evidence for a lawsuit, your predecessor had the tubes shipped to the company's laboratories in Mississauga, Ontario. Trans-Global has a few trucks going to Ontario every week. While in Ontario a charge was laid because set of dual wheels flew off the truck outside Thunder Bay, Ontario and the company was charged under section 84.1 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. The files include quite a bit of information relative to training, testing and maintenance of truck wheels. The thought crosses your mind that a due diligence defence should be raised.

Apparently, the driver concluded that this trip was too much for him. On the way back to British Columbia, he dropped into the Manitoba's Ministry of Labour with some very interesting allegations about Trans-Global's labour relations. Manitoba's labour inspectors have sent a letter saying that they intend to attend Trans-Global's premises in Vancouver to for full audit and that charges may result.

Meanwhile, another particularly thick file deals with damaged machinery that was flown into Vancouver from France on March 31, 2018. Two machines were flown under one air way bill. One machine that had been purchased for $44,000 was a write off; it weighed 7,000 kg. The other machine had been purchased for $34,000, weighed 5,000 kg and was undamaged. Unfortunately, the second machine had limited functions when not employed in tandem with the first machine. The air waybill indicates that any legal action with respect to the carriage need to be brought in Paris.

On further review of the file, you find a memo from you predecessor to the company's president in which it is concluded that the nature of the damage to the machinery meant that it could only have been caused by intentional action and not by accident. The memo further details how Trans-Global has lost two valuable contracts because it did not have the required machinery. The president's reply is that the company will insist on full recovery from the carrier for what it paid for the machinery, in addition to its lost profits from the two contracts that it could not perform.

 

identify as many legal issues as you can from the following fact situation. For each issue, refer to any applicable case law or statutes that might assist in resolving the problem.