Bendova Pharmaceuticals Ltd

500 Words1 Page

When analyzing the case of Steve Brenda, the CEO of Bendova Pharmaceuticals Ltd., in administering Ouchie drug, there is a misconduct that has both legal and ethical implications. Steve was involved in the tort of deceit. Deception occurs if the defendant makes a false statement, which they know to be untrue, with which they intend to mislead the plaintiff, and which causes the plaintiff to suffer a loss (McInnes et al. 2014, 112). Legal issues involve intentional, untrue statements, while ethical issues involve the consequences of deception which is the harm done to the individuals affected Professionals, such as Steve Brenda, are held responsible if they make false statements. Under Steve’s authority, the expiry date of the shelf life of Ouchie was reduced to 6 months from 12 months. There was no experimental evidence to support …show more content…

Steve Brenda knew that there was no evidence to change the expiry date but ordered to reduce the expiry date. This is also an illegal act. Despite the fact that he made a false statement, he was also well aware of the fact that he was making a change regarding the product without any experimental evidence. He can be held responsible legally for making up untrue information about the drug. Steve Brenda, was assigned to do all that he can to increase the profit of the company. Steve was also promised that for every percentage gain in sales his salary was going to increase substantially, such as hundred thousand dollars for every percentage of increase in sales. This explains why Steve would shorten the expiry date and increase the price of the drug per dose which would bring a huge increase in sales. Steve was deliberately intending to mislead the plaintiff to gain financial advantages from his company. This is also a legal issue which can also be a reason for holding Steve liable for

Open Document