CO5119 BUSINESS LAW STUDY PERIOD 1 - 2016 ASSIGNMENT 2 STUDENT NAME: AVISHA WADHWA LECTURER NAME: MARCUS KATTER STUDENT ID : 13348024 DATE OF SUBMISSION: 19/05/2016 Part (A) ISSUE: Does Paul will succeed in instituting legal proceedings against Wayne for the damage caused due to negligence? Relative Law: Keeping in view the provisions contained in Civil liability Act 2003 (Queensland) and the judgement passed in the case of Donogue V/S Stevenson 1932 and in case of Du Pradal & Anor v Petchell [2014] QSC 261 there was a breach of duty in the issue discussed above to take precautions on the part of defendant (Wayne) causing a damage to the plaintiff (Paul) and that risk of harm i.e. injury caused to Paul could have been avoided by doing something in a different way or by taking adequate precautionary measures. APPLICATION:As per Australian Common Law there is no offer and Acceptance between Paul and Wayne which would give rise to a contract and since there is no contract there can be no breach of contract to institute legal proceedings to claim damage on part of the plaintiff. NO OFFER NO ACCEPTANCE . However in consideration with the precedent followed in the case Donogue V/S Stevenson 1932 and in case of Du Pradal & Anor v Petchell [2014] QSC 261
The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case
Mary McDonald, an 86-year-old woman, was frequently complaining about the high cost of maintenance of her house and high property taxes. She decided to cancel her fire insurance to reduce expenses. Mary’s daughter was aware of her mother’s concern about the property, and she took Mary to the lawyer’s office to sign some papers that would protect her mother. When Mary came to the lawyer’s office, she was advised that the paper she was going to sign was the deed to the property. Mary signed a document. Later on, when the municipal tax bill arrived, Mary McDonald was really surprised to see that the property was in her daughter’s name.
10. Dan hires Eve to perform at Dan 's Club, but Eve later breaches the agreement to accept a higher-paying job at First Star Arena. Dan files a suit gainst Eve. The court will most likley: award damages to Dan.
1. Able entered into an oral contract with Baker for the sale of Able 's car for $5,000. Later Baker breached that contract. Able wants to sue to enforce the contract. Under the Statute of Frauds, who is the "party to be charged" in this case?
In 1816, the 2nd National Bank of the United States was chartered by Congress, establishing a branch in Maryland. In trying to protect local business and claiming the unconstitutional chartering of the National Bank, (?????as a direct response????), the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose a tax on all banks not chartered within the state (the Bank of the United States was the only bank that qualified). However, McCulloch, the cashier of BUS’ Baltimore branch, refused to pay this tax and was sued by the state. McCulloch lost in county court and the decision was reaffirmed by the appellate court.
case brief---Gregory, a comedy writer, entered into a contract with Wessel, a comedian. The contract provided that Gregory would provide Wessel with a 15 minute monologue for his upcoming appearance on the comedy hour and Wessel will pay $250 to Gregory. All performers could make $500 per appearance on the comedy hour. and when Wessel was scheduled to aper on the comedy hour, Gregory informed him that he was unable to provide the monologue, because last time Wessel was asked to make special guest appearances at three local comedy clubs performance during the comedy hour. and Wessel bought lawsuit to Gregory for beach of contract and request damages of $1250.
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.
Yes, the negligence in this case is that the students were negligent. They engaged in a threatening act that a reasonable, prudent person would not by painting what appeared to be a weapon at a person and threatening their life. Just the fact that they stormed the building fits the definition of negligence. Even if their intention was not to hurt anyone physically, they did hurt people mentally in the case of Prudence. There are many different ways in which they could have gone about this in a more peacefully way, which makes this negligence in itself.
In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman7, it was determined that courts had to test the duty by “whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant, and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty.”8 If so, then a duty of care could arise.
There is a literal conflict between the state and the federal measures, so that it is impossible to follow both simultaneously.
1. Identify the ethical, strategic, operational, and financial issues in this scenario and list them in priority order from most to least critical.
Robert Briggs and his wife purchased a home located at 167 Lower Orchard Drive, Levittown, Pennsylvania. They made a down payment and borrowed the balance on a 30-year mortgage. Six years later, when Mr. and Mrs. Briggs were behind on their mortgage payments, they entered into an oral contract to sell the house to Winfield and Emma Sackett if the Sacketts would pay the three months’ arrearages on the loan and agree to make the future payments on the mortgage. Mrs. Briggs and Mrs. Sackett were sisters. The Sacketts paid the arrearages, moved into the house, and continued to live there. Fifteen years later, Robert Briggs filed an action to void the oral contract as in violation
The ______ approach to business and society introduced in the text is a descriptive framework that integrates legal and societal considerations with mainstream theories of competitive advantage and social
It is apparent that Steven was not paying enough attention when crossing the road on the night of the accident. Thus, Steven was, to a degree, also negligent as he did not adequately check that the road was clear. When deciding the degree of contributory negligence the courts must look at what reduction of damages pay-out is "just and equitable having regard 's to the claimant 's share in the responsibility for the damage". In order to reach a percentage of blameworthiness for each side, a broad comparison must be made of both the individual contributions from the pursuer and the defender, looking at both the causation of damage and the blameworthiness.
A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.