English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Since 1977, Bangladesh’s garment industry has consistently grown, but is marred by factory fires and collapses. Of the greatest magnitude is the collapse of Rana Plaza — a locally owned building that collapsed on 24 April 2013, killing 1,134 persons and injuring more than 2,500. Since Rana Plaza fabricated garments for Loblaw Companies Limited, a corporation incorporated in Ontario, Canada, I ask whether Loblaw can be held accountable. Using enterprise theory and the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Bazley v Curry, I argue that Loblaw introduced an enterprise into the community carrying certain inherent risks. Since those risks ripened into harm, Loblaw ought to be held liable. This research speaks to the wider conversation between entity law and enterprise theory and can be situated within the broader ongoing debate between the law’s ability to accord protection to corporations and its inability to protect those from corporate misconduct.

Deaths of Numerous at Rana Plaza: Does Liability Rest Eleven Thousand Kilometers Away?