Business Law Assignment

Establishing negligence requires the plaintiff to prove the three elements of negligence before a court. The elements are that, the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the duty of care was breached, and that the harms suffered were directly related to the defendant’s breach. For a successful claims the plaintiff must satisfy all three by the balance of probabilities, which has been the case since Donohue v Stevenson. Simon must therefore prove that there was a duty of care owed to him by the defendant, his teacher, Mr Philpot. Therefore, he must prove that the harm suffered would have been reasonably foreseeable due to the actions or omission of the defendant. In this case, Mr Philpot owes Simon a duty of care, as it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to provide sufficient supervision could result in injury when considering the nature of the environment they are in and the age of the students. Therefore, the first element is satisfied.

There are two defences to an action in negligence: contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. (FoBL, 2005, p83) This case only involves contributory negligence.

Consumer protection also imposes additional costs onto a business since it is mandatory that they comply with these laws. If they do not comply they risk fines and ultimately being put out of business by a court of law. The Consumer Rights Act is now operating in place of the Sales of Goods, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and the Supply of Goods and Services Act. The Consumer Rights Act was introduced in October 2015 to simplify, strengthen and make clearer an individual’s rights when acting as a consumer. Similarly to the Sale of Goods Act, under the Consumer Rights Act all products must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. Under the Consumer Rights Act individuals have a legal right to discard goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, and get a full refund. This right is limited to 30 days from the date the product is bought. After 30 days the consumer will not be legally entitled to a full refund if the item develops a fault. With digital products such as apps or games consumers can ask for the product to be repaired or replaced if it develops a fault. And if this isn't possible, individuals have the right to receive a price

Benge, R v (1865) pre-SCJA 1873 D, a foreman platelayer misread the timetable as to when a train was to arrive. He placed a flagman at the wrong distance giving insufficient warning to the driver. A train left the rails at a spot where rails had been taken up and not replaced. The negligence was that D did not take the correct care to make sure he was working at the right time, when any reasonable person would have known how dangerous the job can be and to double check they are correct.

breach of express and implied contracts based on the theory of promoter liability. The courts

This discussion board post will respond to various questions regarding the Contracts Analysis Case Study involving Marshall Petersen and his local health food business from a

Within a contract consideration must be made to the creation of the contract. The terms of the contract define the obligations of the parties. It is by analysing the terms that you can find out what has to be done to discharge those obligations. For example in Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH [1976] QB 44; [1975] 3 All ER 739, the buyer Cehave did not want to accept the delivered goods because they were not in ‘good condition’ although they were in satisfactory condition to perform their purpose which was to be used as animal feed.

It is agreed by many, if not all, that the compensatory principle is the ruling principle in breach of contract

A dealer sold a new car to Raymond Smith. The sales contract contained language expressly disclaiming liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car and limiting the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replacement of the defective part. One month after purchasing the auto, Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car.

The offeree considered that the contractor should pay the penalty as it was a common practice and the principles should apply even with the existence of the provision binding the offeror to keep the offer open for acceptance for a given period.

Ragnarr, must prove to the court that due to the states negligent actions he will consequently experience economic loss. Causation refers to whether the defendants conduct (or omission), in this case The State Of Victoria, caused the resulting harm or damage. The common law of negligence obliges instigation of causation for the purposefulness of attaching legal accountability. Another element that must be proven is that it is applicable for the scope of the negligent persons liability to extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability ). As it is a case of negligence the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, is weighed upon our client, the plaintiff Mr. Ragnarr. Even if the ‘but for’ test is applied to the current situation in the case, the outcome would be that the loss suffered by the plaintiff would have only occurred if the defendant acted negligently, which they did, and therefore if they hadn’t have acted in that way, then our client would not have been publicly humiliated by the State Of Victoria as a result. The court must deliberate whether it is suitable to extend the scope of the defendant negligence to the harm caused to the plaintiff and our client, Mr. Ragnarr. The harm that occurred, or similar harm, must have been foreseeable in order for it to reach within the scope of liability upon the

Introduction: In this assignment I will go over a few legal terms in relation to contract law. I will also talk about a few precedents that help explain the law.

Is Jack Sprat’s injury (ie severe allergic reaction) the result of the negligence of Smithy’s Fine Jewellers (Smithy’s) – the supplier, and can a clause excluding liability from negligence be enforced?

Whereas, following White v John Warwick , ambiguous wording out of exclusion clause would effectively protect D from their strict contractual liability towards J, but it would not exempt them from liability in negligence. Liability of negligence can only be excluded if clearly expressed .

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,