In the first instance, Stu had no obligation to sue Raj for selling the car since they had not reached an agreement. Stu only expressed the interest in purchasing the car through voice mail but did not enter into an enforced contract (Allen & Overy, 2016). In addition, there is no place where Raj accepted the interests of Stu. Therefore, it can be argued that at this stage, Stu just made an offer. An offer in business law is the expressed willingness to make the purchase with the intention that it will be binding once the seller or the addressed party accepts it.
Accordingly, Raj did not accept the offer from Stu to collect the car. In business law, acceptance does not contain legal effect up to the point where it is communicated to the person sending the offer. This is because it could result in hardships to the party making the offer of being bound without having the knowledge of the acceptance of the offer (Allen & Overy, 2016). Raj did not communicate did not express the acceptance of the offer made by Stu of purchasing the car in £750 and collecting it on Sunday. In fact, the medium in which Stu placed his offer, that is, voice mail can be used to stipulate the acceptance from Raj. The acceptance of an offer forms an agreement which is the basis of a business contract (Newman & Ellis, 2011). This implies that despite the offer made by Stu, there was no contract formed since Raj did not express acceptance of the terms stipulated through the voice mail.
In order to make the contract legally binding, Stu could have sent the deposit to act as consideration for the agreement with Raj. The deposit could have acted as ‘something of value’ which makes the promise to be enforced as a contract. The consideration, therefore, moves from the promise (Stu) to the one making the promise (Raj) to make the contract enforceable (Swanton, 2001). Additionally, the contract between Raj and Stu lacked the contractual intention to make it legally binding. There was no intention of making it legally binding.
In conclusion, it can be seen that Stu had not entered into a legally enforcing agreement with Raj because Stu’s offer lacked the key elements of a contract. These elements include an agreement, contractual intention, and consideration (E-Law Resources, 2016).
In the second instance, Raj loses his personal belonging in a restaurant and broke his leg in the same restaurant due to the loose carpet. The company, S. Weller Ltd denies being liable to this loss and injury due to the disclaimer placed on the desk and the clause subscribed in the standard contract (E-Law Resources, 2016). The legal doctrine that describes the liability of premises requires commercial establishments be responsible for maintaining the safety of their properties (Krstić, 2014). This implies that the property must have maintained care by employing every reasonable strategy to eliminate defective items and dangerous conditions. In this case, the management of the hotel is liable for the injury caused on Raj by the loose carpet because of a number of reasons. First, the management should have placed a notice showing that the carpet is loose. Secondly, it is the role of the management to carry out routine checks to ensure that every item in the property is in safe and required conditions. Thirdly, the management had time to identify the loose carpet and display a caution sign (Krstić, 2014). As a result, S. Waller Ltd must be held liable for negligence that resulted in the injury of their client.
If the negligence of management results in the injury of the visitor, they visitor possess the corresponding right to receive full compensation for the damages made (Newman & Ellis, 2011). In this instance, the damages made to Raj include medical bills for the fractured leg. Therefore, having the clause on standard contract does not make the company avoid being liable in cases of injury to the users or visitors of the property resulting from negligence. This implies that the company did not exercise its duty of care to the visitors (E-Law Resources, 2016).
However, in the theft case the defendant (S. Waller Ltd) had designed the policy considerations aimed at negating the liability from theft. Unfortunately, the contract clause of negating liability lacked the policy factors (Wit, 1998). The claimant (Raj) in this case, cannot effectively establish that the harm from theft was reasonably foreseeable and the relationship of proximity existed. In addition, he cannot establish if it could be reasonable, just, and fair to impose the duty of care remedies for the stolen property under the premise (Swanton, 2001).
In the third instance, the first customer breached the contract by issuing a fake cheque to Raj which was not cleared on representation to the bank (Owen, 2007). However, Raj approached the wrong individual (second customer) who bought the diamond ring from the first client. In this case, the second customer is not liable to Raj because they did not enter into any binding legal contract. In fact, Raj did not transact any business with this customer (E-Law Resources, 2016).
However, the first customer is liable to Raj. Obtaining the good (diamond ring) and promising to pay through issuing a cheque indicates that the contract is legally binding (E-Law Resources, 2016). Because the cheque did not reflect, the customer had breached the legally enforceable law they had formed with Raj. Raj agreed on the terms and conditions of payment and also the inherent risks of establishing this contractual relationship. This indicates that both individual voluntarily assumed their roles and offered the promises as expected in return of the consideration (Doehring, 2005).
In conclusion, the first customer was supposed to be held liable for damages made to Raj by breaching the contract. This is because, after expressing the willingness to purchase the diamond ring and receiving acceptance from the seller, (Raj), the customer did not fulfill their consideration (Doehring, 2005). Raj accepted the offer together with the terms of payment in a good will. In addition, Raj expressed his consideration through issuing the diamond ring to the customer as a sign if transfer of ownership (E-Law Resources, 2016). Unfortunately, the buyer did not fulfill their consideration because there was no value attached to the cheque issued. According to the law of contract, consideration is sufficient for a contract, but it is not adequate without having an economic equivalence of the goods received (Allen & Overy, 2016). Therefore, Raj was to be compensated the damages suffered by being issued with a cheque that did not reflect (Swanton, 2001).
First, the local authority is not held liable because there were warnings which prohibit swimming in the lake (E-Law Resources, 2016). In fact, the risk of injury resulted from the actions of the claimant (Fred) and mostly to the parents. Being a minor, the parents could have offered her guidance on swimming precautions in the hazard lake. The parents were supposed to offer Fred the reasonable grounds that the lake was risky to swim. Unfortunately, the parents left Fred to engage in swimming without external inducement or pressure (Krstić, 2014). Despite the existence of risk from the local authority of inadequate restrictions for swimming the lake, these hazards were not the kind of which the local authority could reasonably be expected to provide protection to the claimant.
Accordingly, the risks of diving in the lake were obviously known (E-Law Resources, 2016). As a result, there existed no duty to take steps that would prevent or warn the claimant of the risks entailed in diving into the lake. In addition, this can be viewed by integrating concepts of free will (Krstić, 2014)and showing that placing liability will otherwise deny most of the users of the park the social benefits. Imposing liability, in this case will imply that the local authority will have to close such parks across the region due to fear of litigation.
The first element of negligence describes the duty of the parties involved, which describes both the channels and constrains of behaving in a socially responsible way (Allen & Overy, 2016). It offers the foundation for making judgment to the propriety of behavior after an action (Newman & Ellis, 2011). Therefore, in this case, the actions of Fred can be determined as improper because, despite the warnings of swimming, she did so at her risks. Indeed, the choice of diving into the lake breached the preexisting obligations defined by the notices provided by the local authority. In fact, courts become reluctant in imposing liabilities to the local authorities that mostly have impacts in the distribution of social resources and effective decision making (E-Law Resources, 2016).
This leads to the second term of misconduct itself that describes the improper actions of Fred. Placing the notices of that warns risky swimming describes the element of duty of care by the local authority to the user of the park. The actions of the local authority, in this case, reflects the behavior of ‘a reasonable and prudent’ individual aiming at achieving their objectives with low risks of harming others during the process. However, determining if Fred’s conduct and choices of diving into the river which led to the breaking of the neck are a result of negligent will depend significantly on personal efforts of the local authority to offer a safe park for citizens.
Under the third element of negligence, there the injury suffered by the plaintiff does not have a direct causal relationship with acts of negligence of the defendant (local authority) (Minnes, 2013). The law of negligence provides that Fred, who is the victim of the accident can only recover the damages caused only if the defendant or the local authority was at least to be blamed for the accident in partial terms. The factual case in negligence, in this case can only be described in actual connection (Wit, 1998) between the plaintiff’s harm and the defendant’s negligence. In this instance, there exists no actual connection between local authority’s actions and Fred’s injury. In fact, from the information given the local authority had shown its interest in placing notices that swimming in the lake is dangerous. The notices eliminate the element of negligence on the side of the defendant in this case.
Accordingly, Fred must link the damages or injuries suffered to the negligence of the local authority. In this instance, it is difficult to link the injury to the actions of the local authority. This is because the local authority was aware that the lake contains rocky stones which are dangerous to the life of swimmers and they expressed their concern through placing warning disclaims and other techniques to discourage swimming. On the hand, since it is a public good, banning swimming will imply that the park be closed and which will dent a large group the social benefits. Using the ‘but-for’ test, it can be argued that the lack negligence of the local authority did not cause the injury of the plaintiff. However, the harm would have still occurred if the local authority had not placed the warning notices.
The last element of negligence describes the proximate cause (Owen, 2007). This indicates the non-remote connection between Fred’s injury and the wrongs of the local authority. The proximate cause can be based on justice, common sense, and logic in arriving at the conclusion of this case. In this case, we integrate the aspect of feasibility which can reflect how the local authority had the adequate foresight of the risks entailed in swimming in the lake (Swanton, 2001). They had substantial evidence that swimming in the lake is dangerous and have higher chances of causing injuries to the visitors of the back. Therefore, with this argument it can be concluded that the local authority can be held liable for the negligence of not placing adequate and effective measures that will prevent injuries especially for minors like Fred.
Allen & Overy, 2016. Basic Principles of English Contract Law, s.l.: Advocates for International Development.
Doehring, A. G., 2005. Blurring the Distinction between Contract and Tort: Courts Permitting Business Plaintiffs to Recover Tort Damages for Breach of Contract, Chicago: McDermott Will & Emery LLP.
E-Law Resources, 2016. Duty of Care – Policy factors (Fair, just and reasonable). [Online]
Available at: http://e-lawresources.co.uk
[Accessed 29 May 2017].
Krstić, D. Đ., 2014. THE LAW OF CONTRACT AND TORTS. Investing in Yu.
Minnes, J., 2013. Annual Essay Contest: First Year Contract Law, London: Queen Mary Law Society in the United Kingdom.
Newman, Z. G. & Ellis, A. P., 2011. Navigating the Nuances of Tortious Interference Claims. Business Torts Journals, 18(4), pp. 1-5.
Owen, D. G., 2007. The Five Elements of Negligence. Hofstra Law Review, 35(2), pp. 1671-1687.
Swanton, J., 2001. Exclusion of Liability for Negligence. The University of Queensland Law Journal, 15(2), pp. 157-163.
Wit, J. F., 1998. The Transformation of Work and the Law of Workplace Accidents, 1842-1910. The Yale Law Journal Company, 107(5), pp. 1467-1502.