Contract and negligence aspects in a business are considered to be essential element so as to make a valid contract (Chen-Wishart, 2012). The main purpose of the report is to give emphasis on elements of valid contract and understand the relevance as per case study mentioned in report. The emphasis of project is on element of contract that is applied in diverse business situations. The next section is on principles of liability in negligence.
Provide Legal Advice
As per given case, it is required that there is a fulfilment towards all the essential elements of a valid contract. As per the case, first element is offer where Sam offers the book for selling by displaying it on the shop. This offer was acceptable to bob as he wanted to buy the book after seeing. Offer being accepted accounts to second element of contract (DiMatteo, 2012). As per third element there is an intention to offer under which Sam intention is to sell book to bob. But the contract does not seem to be valid as Sam put a refusal for selling book to bob as he had already sold it to Carl. In this regard, different kinds of contract have an influence on the case (Elliot and Quinn, 2009). In verbal contract there is an absence of any written record and everything takes place through verbal communication. This happened in the case as communication took place verbally. Hence impact has been both parties had to focus on details that took place during the conversation (Gray, 2010). The second is written contract where all detailed are in writing and proof is recorded which cannot be changed. The next is contract by deed where parties make an entry into contract by agreeing on basis of action so as to influence the agreement. There is also a presence of terms of reference which have a crucial influence on contract. One is content of agreement also known as clauses or terms (Jones, 2002). This includes subject matter of contract that took place between Sam and Bob. Next are express terms which are agreed by parties. This aid in determining clear terms that have been agreed on by Sam and Bob.
As per the given case study, Adam is found to be liable for paying reward to Brian. After seeing the advertisement on newspaper Brian began his travel from Dover to Calais on very same day. Liability of tort is all about the person who had the liability to pay for damages if there is no fulfilment by other person (Mote, 2013). In the similar manner, law of contract is all about the contractual obligations and liabilities which arise on parties when there is non fulfilment of terms as mentioned in agreement. As per the case, there is an application of law of tort as liability in negligence (Chen-Wishart, 2012). Adam also had the liability to pay a reward of £1000 as Brian travelled to journey on the very same day when there was publication of advertisement. There has been application of the law as reward was withdrawn the next day and Brian was not even aware of this aspect. It is thus obliged on Adam to pay the reward as news of Withdrawal was unknown to Brian. In this scenario, there is a non application of vicariously as there was not any involvement of business activity and no employee and employer relation existed. Business can become liable vicariously if damage in done on part of subordinate or employee. At that time, the employee is a sole responsibility of employer. The vicarious liability is all about that if damage is caused then employer will be responsible for paying harm that has been caused to other person (Vicarious Liability, 2013). This is so as activity of harm took place when manager or employer was responsible and worker has been found to work under him or her.
As per the case, Neil is a gardener who stole antique kind of jewellery from Mark. Roger works as a dishwasher in Poshplace Hotel. The committed activities have been found to be in same proximity but are not related to one another. Wrong deed carried out by Neil does not put an obligatory duty towards Mark. The criminal act was done by Neil intentionally. This thus cannot be covered in act of tort (Chen-Wishart, 2012). But her Neil committed the crime on an intentional basis. Hence, employer put emphasis on the fact that hotel has been providing a secure environment to guests and others who are associated with hotel.
Roger was working as a dishwasher in Poshplace hotel. He was very disappointed on account of the rashes on his hands. He used to complain regularly which caused irritation to Chef Colin. Hence, he hit Roger with a frying pan thereby making him unconscious. But the act committee by Colin is not a responsibility of Neil. Here, action was committed by Neil who impacted Roger then only he has a right to claim for any charges. But in present scenario, a sue can be made only on Colin for attack carried on Roger. Hence, the act has been found to be covered under criminal and not tort law as hitting act with a frying pan was intentional in nature (Chen-Wishart, 2012). Moreover, as the act was carried out a reason hence Bern who happens to be owner of the hotel cannot be held liable as per vicarious liability on account of the injury that happened to Roger (Elliot and Quinn, 2009). Hence, it is clear that given statement does not seem to be appropriate as per negligence of tort.
Mark is a visitor in Hotel Poshplace who stayed for a night. But during that time period, a masked man entered and threatened him followed by stealing of antique jewellery. Later it was revealed that masked man was Neil working as a gardener in hotel. This clearly reflected that he was the one who stole master room keys. Hotels are majorly responsible to maintain safety and security of visitors. The conduct of Neil was done on intentional basis and hence is required to be taken as a criminal activity in comparison to civil law (Kelly and et.al. 2013). But, Ben defaulted in the part where incident happened. There is a section in Occupier’s liability which displays that there is a requirement to ensure fro reasonable care and safety of third party visitors by occupier. This proves the inappropriateness of statement.
As per the statement, there has been no mention of specific warnings with respect to act given to Mark. On the basis of Occupier’s liability Act, 1984, owner of the hotel discharged his liability by placement of adequate sign boards which showcased any danger for the visitors and preventing them from any harm (Chen-Wishart, 2012). It was followed by Ben in hotel but Mark complete ignored the sign boards. So, he came out as a victim of situation as no attention was paid by him on sign board. Hence, the hotel does not bear any kind of liability to Mark. This proves that given statement is correct.
Mark was a visitor to Poshplace hotel who faced burglary during nigh time. This came under criminal conduct made by an employee who was employed in the hotel. As per the case, there cannot be acceptance to Ordinary principle of Ordinary principle for claiming the hotel for making payments towards damages (Elliot and Quinn, 2009). This is as there has been a fulfilment of all aspects related to negligence law as of duty of care, breach in duty and remoteness for damage. Since, the act stands to be intentional in nature and took place in spite of the fact that hotel adhered with all the responsibilities so there was no liability to pay for damages (Kelly and et.al. 2013). Hence, the statement does not appear to be apt.
As per act of Occupier’s liability, the statement is inaccurate on behalf of the case. It is so as mark suffered on account of burglary that happened in the hotel. There is a dissatisfaction towards underlying circumstances in occupier’s liability in both the cases as per given scenario. The Occupier’s liability lays concern on safety as well as security aspect of visitors. Mark happens to be an underlying third party as per the case. Statement denotes swimming trunks of Mark and so claim made by hotel does not seem to be appropriate. Both the acts are not as per requirements of occupier’s liability which makes the statement inapt.
The statement does not seem to be appropriate. It is clear as per the instances that have been mentioned in case. Here, vicarious liability can be excluded completely. As per the case, the crime carried out by Neil seems to be intentional and hence this cannot be considered to be a part of vicarious liability (Elliot and Quinn, 2009). Mark is thus not liable to claim for damages that happened to him. All actions were carried out in sound phase of mind and with an intention. Hence, vicarious liability on employer Ben does not seem to be liable here thereby making the statement inept (Kelly and et.al. 2013).
It can be concluded as per present report that it is essential to make fulfilment towards all the elements of contract so as to make it a valid one. It can further be said that tort negligence and vicarious liability are crucial parts of contract and not counted under criminal but civil conduct. and why always employes have a good relation with the company.
Chen-Wishart, M., 2012. Contract Law. Oxford University Press.
DiMatteo, A. L., 2012. False dichotomies in commercial contract interpretation. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy.
Elliot, C. and Quinn, F., 2009. Tort Law. Longman.
Gray, J., 2010. Legal commentary. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance.
Jones, M., 2002. Textbook on Torts. Oxford University.