- •Introduction 8
- •Introduction 11
- •Introduction 15
- •Introduction
- •Explanation of the importance of the essential elements required for the formation of a valid contract
- •What is contract?
- •What are the main parts of a valid contract?
- •Agreement
- •Consideration
- •Intention
- •Capacity
- •Discussion about the impact of different types of contract Classification of contracts
- •The impact of different types of contract
- •1.3 Analysis of terms in contracts with reference to their meaning and effect Express and implied terms
- •Conditions and warranties, innominate terms
- •Exclusion clauses and onerous terms
- •Case of Mr b and Mr c jr
- •Case of Mr d, Mr a, Mr b and Miss e
- •Case of Mr a, Professor f and Doctor g
- •Case of father of Mr c jr, Mr c and Mr b
- •Case of Mr a and Miss e
- •2.2 Applying the law on terms in different contracts
- •Case of salesman from Tills Ltd - Mr h and Mr a
- •Case of Mr a and Mr I
- •2.3 Evaluating the effect of different terms and conditions Case of Mr a and Tills Ltd
- •Case of Mr a and Tills Ltd, PayPal
- •Conclusion
- •Introduction
- •3.1 Contrasting liability in tort with contractual liability
- •Types of tort
- •3.2 Explanation of the nature of liability in negligence
- •3.2.1 Owed a duty of care
- •Duty of care for economic loss
- •Continued occupiers liability
- •3.2.2 Breach of duty of care
- •Continued principles affecting standard of care
- •Defences
- •3.3 Explanation how a business can be vicariously liable
- •Case of Mrs y and Miss z
- •Case of Mr w and Miss z
- •Case of Mr V and Miss z
- •Case of Miss z, stu advertising agency and pqr
- •Case of pqr and Miss z
- •4.2 Applying the elements of vicarious liability
- •Case of Mr o, Mr n, Mr m and Miss z
- •Case of Mr o, Miss z and Mr l
- •Case of Mr o, Mr k and Miss z
- •Conclusion
Case of Mr o, Miss z and Mr l
Mr O was at work and saw through the window that Mr L was trying to break into his car. He left the fitness centre and attacked Mr L. As a result Mr L wants to sue Miss Z for health damages, but he cannot do it because attacking him was not his duty at work, that is why Miss Z cannot be liable for him and his actions that are not related to his work. Attorney General v Hartwell case was the defence of Miss Z – policeman was shooting to people in the bar because of personal feelings and it was not a part of his job. Mr L can only sue Mr O for health damages.
Case of Mr o, Mr k and Miss z
Mr K is assistant manager and he has suggested Mr O to have a work out alone after closing time but this is against company policy. While doing exercise he dropped a barbell on his head and he was found unconscious the next morning, as a result he suffers dizzy spells. Mr O wants to sue Miss Z for breaching duty of care and he can use Mod v Radcliffe case that will help him to claim, because it was partly connected to his job.
Conclusion
In this paper I have applied the elements of tort of negligence and defenses and applied the elements of vicarious liability in different business situations.