When it comes to legal action in business, it is important to consider all parties involved, each perspective, and all possible steps of actions. By figuring out exactly what happened, it can help professionals in business law to make the right decision for each case. In this scenario, there are two different perspectives to consider, that of Saunders and Watts, and the Rusholme's. One could say it is the Rusholme's fault for not purchasing insurance, however there is also the fact that Saunders and Watts caused the accident in the first place. So, who is at fault? Who is liable for the damages? In this case, with all of the facts presented, it is reasonable to conclude that negligence is the core problem of this situation. It is important to look at negligence itself, substantive laws, and who is liable. Negligence is defined as "All persons, as established by state tort law, have the duty to act reasonably and to exercise a reasonable amount of care in their dealings and interactions with others. Breach of that duty, which causes injury, is negligence" (College for America, n.d). In this situation, as per tort law, the defendant was owed duty of care by Saunders and Watts. That company disregarded this law, did not follow safety protocols by closing the doors and windows, which was against specific instruction. Because of this fact, property damage occurred as the house exploded due to their disregard for safety. Now, on the other hand, there are possible arguments that could be challenged. For example, it could be argued that Saunders and Watts, after reading about a similar incident involving theft, took safety precautions to protect their home from other thieves. Furthermore, it could also be challenged that Standard Household Products Ltd. warned about potential dangers on the label, and that it was actually Saunders and Watts' responsibility to carry out proper safety protocol to properly use the product. For a successful negligence claim, many factors must be addressed. The first would be proving that Saunders and Watts did in fact owe the Rusholme's duty of care. Saunders and Watts, in every job, should ensure proper safety procedures are being followed and precautions are taken to avoid harm. Furthermore, Standard Household Products was also required to warn product users of dangers, warnings, and instructions for safe use. Next, it would have to be proven that both companies breached their duty. For this, it would have to be proven that Saunders and Watts did not follow the warning included on the sealer and did not remove devices that produce sparks. It could also be argued that Standard Household Products had an inadequate label or the possibility of a defect in the product. The following step would be causation. This would include solidifying a connection between the actions of the defendant and the damage caused by the explosion. To prove this, one must gather proof that the explosion was a direct cause of their actions. The final step would be to prove that damage occurred to the property such as taking pictures or bringing in other types of proof. As mentioned above, there are some counter defenses that could be brought up by either company. It is important to disprove these and shut them down by looking at each defense and what is being argued. First, it is possible they argue contributory negligence, stating that the Rusholme's had a part to play as they did not renew their fire insurance policy. This could be considered negligence on the Rusholme's part. Another argument could be assumption of risk, as they left the key with the neighbor and only giving instructions, inferring that they knew the risk

they were taking in doing this. It is also possible that the blame could be geared towards the neighbor, arguing third party negligence. They may state that it was their fault for neglecting the house which led to the explosion, not Saunders and Watts. For success in future, there are many different options for the Rusholme's to fix these legal issues. The most important one would be contract law, which is "a legally binding agreement between two or more persons for a particular purpose." (Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d) It is a good option for two parties to have a written agreement to ensure required responsibilities are met. For this situation, instead of leaving instructions, the Rusholme's could have had Saunders and Matt sign a contract regarding duty of care and following their written instructions, so they are held liable. Another substantive law that could be applied here is environmental law. Because the property exploded, one could conclude the environment around the house was also damaged. If the company wasn't covered with environmental law, possible fines could be introduced to Saunders and Watts for the damage they caused. Rusholme's main defense is negligence causing property damage. Saunders and Watts would be mainly liable for their actions because they were the ones doing the work and following instructions regarding ventilation. If it is determined that the labelling on the product was inadequate or defective somehow, it is possible Standard Household Products could be held primarily liable. In conclusion, as their lawyer, the best course to take in this case is to start off by gathering all the evidence described above, getting witnesses, professional and expert advice, and all required documentation. It would be beneficial to analyze the Rusholme's potential liability so any counter defenses can be disproven in court. By building a strong case and having all required proof, it will more likely result in a successful outcome.