About peanuts spoken

Posted 05/09/2014 09:22:53

What can we as a society do to the question about accusation of behaviour of undertakings at the earliest possible stage clear to answer?

Lawyers offer important points of legal statements in the exercise of their profession. Innovations and changes start sometimes spontaneously with a ruling from a court college.

In this first Legal Accountability for such a ruling, we put to your blog: the peanut-judgment.

(Would you like to read the judgment? HR 02-02-1993, NJ 1993, 476 Aflatoxin Judgment)

Wherein lies the innovation that this statement is heralded?

The criminal process that the peanut judgment goes, start at the time that the Inspectorate at the establishment a sample of imported peanuts from abroad takes. A study of the sample is clear that excessive levels aflatoxin is present in the sample. And that is prohibited and punishable.

The Inspectorate makes process written report submitted and the case is on the right.

The lawyer of the company brings in the criminal process that the company has taken all possible precautions. Claims the entrepreneur is aware of the controls carried out in the country of origin be held. He takes care that the peanuts in clean and dry containers are transported. Upon arrival in the Netherlands be peanuts again controlled by a recognized Institute, and then stored in suitable premises. The company delivers to its customers before the peanuts they are again checked for strange ingredients.

Now you can consider these precautions in two ways in the judgement about it happened.

In the first weigh-in would you popular spoken say: hump. Then you need but no peanuts from distant countries. If you do, you take the risk that something goes wrong in the bargain. So watched the judge who initially had to judge on the case. He ruled that sampled the find of aflatoxin in peanuts to the company was to blame, even though the company had to take the maximum of her care taken into account. The judge explained the company no punishment, but his statement lays the blame for the incident completely in the company.

In the second weighing, the emphasis is rather on the question of whether there really are any culpable behaviour. If you as an entrepreneur have taken all reasonable of you may be asked, is there any question of culpability?

The Supreme Court has ruled on this second way as highest judge about the doings of the enterprise.

In its judgement the Supreme Court comes to the conclusion that to this company, of which it is clear that this maximum care has been taken, within reason no accusation can be made of the presence of aflatoxin. There is no question of guilt, and so need to be no penalty imposed.

The High Council is an interesting rate. A company who can demonstrate that they comply with maximum care, need no punishment to fear.

The peanut judgment let us still left with a question: what about the time?

The sampling took place on May 9, 1989. The judgment of the Supreme Court is dated 2 February 1993.

That means that there will be a period of almost 4 year has passed in which the entrepreneur has had no certainty on whether he acted carefully and responsibly.

From the point of view of legal protection in the right procedures offers utmost care. The downside of this is that some time may pass before a judge in a ruling by the highest instance is done.

At companies shows a great need to exist for clarity and predictability to the front; that is to say, the setting up of business processes and developing precautions.

There, the question with which this article begins:

What can we as a society do to the question about accusation of behaviour of undertakings at the earliest possible stage clear to answer?

You have here experience or ideas on?

Your comment is welcome. To be able to comment you must be logged in.
Click here to sign up.