Sample on Business Legal Advice

Free consent – Free consent means that parties to the Roger is a dishwasher who is complaining about the skin rashes that he is having because of the long period washing of items. Colin is the head chef who is getting frustrated with the anger of Roger. One day he hit Roger unconscious with a frying pan. The statement states that Roger can bring a claim in vicarious liability against Neil for this action of Colin. The statement is wrong and had not meaning in its sense. Roger cannot bring the claim in the act of vicarious liability against Neil for the hitting action of Colin as there is no employee- employer relation between them (Schaffer, 2009). This type of Act places the responsibility on one individual or party for the failure of another individual with whom it shares the specific relationship. It is to be noted that like Roger, Neil is also an employee in the Phosphate hotel and from this it can be said that Neil cannot be held responsible for the wrong done by Colin. Further the element of tort in liability does not arises here because the action of Colin was intentional was performed under great frustration. At last it can be said that the statement does not comprises with the conditions described in the cases. contract must agree upon a same thing in the same sense (Schaffer, 2009). It must not be influenced by any undue influence, coercion or through fraud. In the given case action was performed with a free consent.

Offer & acceptance – For a contract to be formed a valid offer and acceptance is required. In the given case offer was made by Bon to Sam and he wants to purchase a book from Sam’s shop (Emerson, 2009). But the offer was not accepted by Sam because he had already sold the book to another person.
Intention to create legal relations – In order to construct legal relations it is essential to have intention in a valid contract. In the given case Bob’s intention is to purchase the book and Sam’s intention is not sell the book (Marsh and Soulsby, 2002).

Consideration – a contract becomes legally enforceable when each of the individual or party attached renders something and gets something. It is regarded as the price paid by one party in return for promise of another party (Heine and Kerber, 2002). In the following case price, will be the consideration for Sam if the book gets sold and book will be the consideration for Bob.

Elements of Contract

Elements of contract can be applied in the given case here. First one is offer & acceptance under which the offer was made by the Local Council to the general public. It includes the board notifying about the rent for hiring a chair inside the park for 50p. The offer was accepted by Berry, he pays the money and a ticket was given to him. Second one is the Consideration, under which the amount paid for using the chair is the consideration for the Local Council and chair is the consideration for Berry (Curry, 2008). Next comes, the intention, in this case the intention was clear from both the parties. Here the intention of the Council was to offer sitting services to the people coming to the park.

In the scenario the clause printed behind the ticket reflects the terms and conditions of the contract. The Local Council is entitled to relay on to the clause because they have clearly specified in the clause that they will not be liable for any damages or injury caused by the failure of any of the hired equipments (Miller, 2011). Attention was needed from the side of Berry and he must have read the terms and stipulations printed on the clause before using the service of the park. Therefore there was no breach of condition & warranty from the side of Council.

When the legal relations are developed between the parties contractual liability arises. According to the case given the contractual liability places on Adam because according to the advertisement he decided to pay the reward to a person who crosses the English Channel in a bath from Dover to Calais. Liability in tort here arises on Adam because he withdraws the reward that was placed by him (Gillies, 2004). Brian was not familiar with the withdrawing advertisement placed by the Adam in this case he deserves or entitled to get the reward as he has completed the challenge. Vicarious liability arises on a party when that another party with whom it shared a special relationship has failed to performed its duties. In the scenario given element of vicarious liability cannot be applied because there is no employee-employer relationship between the parties (Employer Vicarious Liability. 2013). When activities of the parties attached to the agreement falls below the standards of behaviour constrained by Law assignment help, in that case liability in negligence comes into the action. Here this liability arises on Adam he refused to pay the prize money to Brian who has completed the challenge posted by him. He withdraws the rewards but Brian was unaware of it hence he is entitled for the damages that have occurred to Brian.

Report On Negligence of Contracts

In the following case Neil is a hotel gardener who has stolen the master key of the hotel rooms. He had also threatened Mark and stolen his jewellery also. The statement here reflects that Neil does not owe Roger a non-delegable duty of care as an employer to offer a safer working environment. This statement is correct in its sense because Neil does not have any non-delegable duty towards the Mark. The robbery conducted by Neil was illegal and was very intentional. According to the law it was a criminal offence. Here the elements of tort of negligence cannot be applied because it is identified by its nature of executing unintentional activities (Clarkson and et.al., 2010). On the other side elements of vicarious liability and defences are not applicable because the statement does not match up with the conditions given.

Mark is a customer who visits the Phosphate Hotel which is owned by Ben. On the arriving night a masked enters into his room and robs the antique jewellery carried by him. Later on it was disclosed that the masked man was Neil and he has used the master key to do the crime. It is the responsibility of every organization to offer protection and safety to his clients or customers when he enters into their premises (Marsh and Soulsby, 2002). But the Phosphate hotel is not liable to Mark under the Occupier’s Liability Act because the misconduct done by Mark comes under the criminal law. His robbery was purely intentional and hotel was not familiar with his wrong intentions.

The statement is true in its meaning because the Mark was not intimated that he had to face such type of incidents in hotel. The organization is not liable to him under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 because of its warning notice. The occupier of the premises discharges from their liabilities by placing orderly sign boards for the safety of the arrivals according to the section of warnings stated under the Act (Heine and Kerber, 2002). These sign boards signify about the danger which can arise. The robbery thing which happens with the Mark cannot be predicted earlier. Therefore it can be said that the Phosphate hotel can defend itself in case if any claim is put by the Mark.

The statement is not correct and has no relevancy with the scenarios mentioned.The action of Neil was intentional and it comes under the criminal law. Mark cannot use ordinary negligence principles in his claim against the hotel because elements of ordinary negligence cannot be applied here (Mann and Roberts, 2012). The negligence law is comprised with three components breach of duty, remoteness of damages and duty of care. This law can be applicable only if the hotel has followed every rules and regulations with responsibility.

In this scenario Mark goes for a swim in the pool of the hotel. A sign was placed on the door of the pool stating that it closed between 7: 00 pm to 7: am. It also states that during this period no visitors are to make entry because it can be dangerous when visitors are unattended. Mark ignores the sign completely, jumps into the pool in the presence of dark and hurts himself. In his expression of anger he tears his expensively designed swimming trunks. The statement is correct in its context because he cannot bring claim for the cost of his designer trunk under the occupier’s liability (Marsh and Soulsby, 2002). This type of liability is concerned with protection and safety of the people arriving to a particular premise.

In this scenario Mark cannot bring a claim in the vicarious liability against the hotel for the loss of his jewellery because the misconduct performed by Neil comes under the criminal law. His robbery was completely purposive and he had done it in a sound condition. He cannot bring a claim under the vicarious liability because this act does not consider this type of claims (Rush and Ottley, 2006). Liability under defence can also be not applied because there is no claim which can be put and liability in defence is applicable when there is a claim to put.

Conclusion

Hence from the above study it can be concluded that some statements have no relevancy with the conditions described in the entire case. The report has offered valid justifications and theories for each statement.

Reference

• Heine, K. and Kerber, W. 2002. European Corporate Laws, Regulatory Competition & Path Dependence. European Journal of Law and Economics.Mann,
• Marsh, B. S. and Soulsby, J., 2002. Business Law. Nelson Thornes.
• Marsh, B. S. and Soulsby, J., 2002. Business Law. Nelson Thornes.
• Miller, R., 2011. Modern Principles of Business Law. Cengage.

UPTO50%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit