Unit 2 Business Law P1

Compensatory damages of more than $68,000 were awarded and the court held that Bugden’s club bore vicarious liability for assault during being employed as a player. Vicarious liability is the legal liability imposed on one person or agent (e.g. an employer) for the wrongful acts of another, when those acts were done within the scope of the legal relationship between them, such as employment.

a) Alan wants to know the five requirements in order to make a valid contract.

Roland is an employee of kingston. While Roland was leaving a client’s site and heading across town in the opposite direction of his office to purchase football tickets for himself, the company’s van driven by Roland accidentally hit the back of a car. Will Kingston be vicariously liable as an employer?

Vicarious liability refers to a scenario in which an individual or a given organization is held potentially liable for damages occurred that significantly led to harm (Bell, 2013). In a workplace setting, the organizations may be held responsible for any damage caused by its employees if the actions took placed during the employment.

The benefits of vicarious liability are four-fold: it allows a plaintiff access to a deep-pocketed defendant, acts as an incentive for defendants to ensure that their employees are carrying out their employment in a proper manner, ensures that employers are liable for employees’ acts whilst working to further the defendant’s business interests and “promotes business distribution.” Although the employer is financially liable for the acts of their employee, no fault is actually attributable to them. In order to find for vicarious liability, the task must be undertaken in the course of employment, meaning that it must be inextricably connected to a task the employer has assigned to the employee.

To decide whether a situation of vicarious liability arose, we must consider, firstly whether the tortfeasor was an employee of D and, secondly, if the tort was committed within the course of employment. If both questions are satisfied then the employer will become liable.

Vicarious Liability imposes criminal liability on one party for the criminal acts of another party. I believe it should and shouldn't exist in some cases. It shouldn't exist in a case if your friend needed to borrow your car for the day and found out it was wrecked, with vicarious liability the owner of that car and driver would be both liable even if the owner had no clue that the friend was going to wreck the car that day. You cant control others actions, only your own. It should exist because employer's would be responsible for any employee's actions. For example if one of the emplyee's took the company car just to use it one day, maybe because his car was down the employer wouldn't be held liable but if he was sent out on a business trip and wrecks the company car, the employer would be held liable for his or hers actions. Parents can be held responsible for the actions of their children by the child committing a wrongful act while following the directions from the parent, the parent may be vicarious liable.

Their vicarious liability arises, where the employer has no direct responsibility but it can be established, the employee acted within the course of employment when committing a delict. However, in certain situations it is rather difficult to determine.

In these cases liability is joint as well as several. The other common example of vicarious liability is the liability of an employer for the torts of his employees committed in the course of employment. It is not necessary in such circumstances for the employer to have breached any duty that was owed to the injured party, and therefore it operates as strict or no-fault liability. It is possible that the injured party could be either an employee or a stranger, and the employer can be held vicariously liable in both situations. The most important element to establishing a case for vicarious liability is that the wrongdoer be acting as a servant or employee, and that the wrong done be connected to the employees course of employment. Vicarious liability can only be imposed if it is proved that the employee was acting ³in the course of employment. This criterion is essential, and requires a clear connection between the employment duties and the employee’s acts complained of. A reason for vicarious responsibility of employers is that employers usually are, while their servants usually are not, financially capable of the burden of civil liability. The theory partly owes its existence to the anxiety of the injured person to find a solvent defendant. Again it is said that the employer must be made liable because it is he ‘who has set the whole thing in motion.’

Was the brank corporation and the Adelaide branch manager liable for the negligence of its employees(sam)？According to the common law that vicarious liability is expressed in three main forms,

When applied to physical torts, an employer-employee relationship must be established (meaning that no vicarious liability is established for work performed as an independent contractor) and the act must be committed within the scope of employment (i.e., substantially within time and geographical limits, job description and at least with partial intent to further

A contract is essential to permeate a concept implementation between two or multiple parties. When a person agrees to buy a home, there is a contract with the provider same is the case to our home furniture that we achieve by contracting with the respective utility providers. Therefore, a contract is essential to enforce a potential into action. In the pursuit of the instruments of a contract, it is noted that there a potential similarity and subtle disparity between oral and written contracts. However, justifying an oral contract than a reasonable doubt can be a daunting than proving a written contract. Some contracts demand to be transcribed and will not take effect until the vital components are enforced in signed, written

1.2 The impact of three methods in terms of forming and binding enforceable contract under the English Law.

A contract is a lawful agreement between two or more persons/parties/people within the limits of their contractual capacity, with the serious intention of creating a legal obligation, communication such intentions without vagueness, each to the other being of the same mind as to the subject matter, to perform positive or negative acts which are possible of performance. (Gibson & Fraser, 2011)

The definition of the term contract requires definition of 2 major terms namely “Agreement” and “Promise”. An “Agreement” is every promise or a set of promise that are forming a consideration.