Introduction to Business Law - Essay Example

INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW Name Class Instructor Institution City State Date Introduction to Business Law Lance and Cadella’s case against Parramatta Council According to the law of tort, it implies that the involved jurisdictions are not correct doings to the affected person, and they may even cause the affected parties to suffer much harm. The damage that is caused can run into legal proceedings being commenced for the tortfeasor. However, in this case of Lance and Cadella, the damaged part is not going to be discussed. The crimes of tort can create the jurisdiction for legal actions because it seems that the person who caused an accident was either negligent or did not care about the well-being of the people who have been affected. Nevertheless, the crime committed does not necessarily have a direct connection with the criminal nature of the case. (Bambra, 2009). The victim may decide to come up with a lawsuit due to the negligence of the oppressor. In this scenario, the plaintiff can choose to display that the actions were taken, or even the decision not to take any actions may have some base for a case to be brought forward, in the civil law and jurisdiction platform. Essentially, this is the same as a delict in the view that the actions stated are recognized because of an accident or incident. The cases may differ in complexity, and the accidents may cause economic, emotional, property, privacy violations, or a breach of ownership and law rights. Many cases that are filed usually are caused by negligence, as it will see later in the case of Lance and Cadella’s case against the Parramatta Council. The civil law jurisdictions usually take many torts that are caused by the mentioned negligence and may be covered under the legislation and policies of intentional torts. This is a case whereby one party acts in a way to jeopardize the well being of another, either physically or emotionally. (Bambra, 2009). In fact, other cases that have been brought forward have demonstrated the means of recovery from liability without even bringing up the topic of negligence in the case. The case of Lance and Cadella’s case vs. Parramatta Council is a good example of tort law. This is quite distinct from criminal law in the sense that; These cases have a lower incidence of law evidence or proof that is brought on the legal case, and it can only be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The plaintiff can come over the tort case when the person who caused an action of negligence is a second-time, offender. This means that if the individual had an earlier criminal case, it might cause the plaintiff to have more ground to criticize the offender or negligence action. Many instances have been similar to this case, especially the case of Simpson OJ who had been earlier tabled in a criminal court case, however, later he was found to have done atrocities against the unexpected death of a person later on. (Bambra, 2009). In addition, tort cases can result from a somewhat negligent action. However, the action was not by any chance meant to cause any injury to anyone. The case may have been due to a small oversight in the arrangement of an environment, as it will be highlighted in the case of Lance and Cadella’s case against Parramatta Council. In the case of Lance's and Cadella's, it is evident that Lance was an expert in riding his bicycle along the Parramatta River's edge in W.Sydney. Lance was experienced and even the previous week he had ridden towards the end of the 30 kilometer route. He had his wife at the time and his wife Cadella can attest to this. This can be brought against the Parramatta council because Lance has a witness that saw and experienced the route last week. It is a good gesture for the Parramatta council to have a road crossing at Macquarie Avenue that was clearly marked. However, Lance and Cadella can argue that the downhill nature of the terrain of the street would have required more markings to enable the rider to reduce his speed and maintain a constant speed while approaching the road, with or no traffic. This is an act of negligence by the Parramatta Council whereby they did not put enough labels or signs on the Macquarie Street, putting into consideration the downhill nature of the street. Visibility is low on the downhill road. To make matters worse, Lance and Caddella can urge that the Parramatta council had put a chain that cut across the pathway at an entrance to the park. There were no clear indications that the chain was installed, and there was no sufficient breaking allowance for any rider coming across that lane. This is what caused the accident because Lance reached the chain and the chain actually catapulted him to land on his head. The civil law jurisdiction stipulates for clear labeling for any obstructions that are along a public road. (Bambra, 2009). In addition, it seems this was a temporary chain since it was not there a week ago. The negligence of the Parramatta council constituted to the incident because it is not wise to put barriers and ignore to put across communication to the public considering the nature of the downhill street. Lance and Cadella can also insist that they were there the previous Sunday, and there was no barrier to prevent motor vehicles from entering the park. To add insult to injury, the negligence of the Council constituted by painting of the chain grey, the same color as the footpath made it difficult for the rider to see any barrier. The color of a barrier should be bright day and night, with lighted signs or reflectors to indicate the presence of a barrier. Lance is an experienced cyclist and Cadella can second him to that in this case. The cause of the incident was an apparent negligent action by the Parramatta Council, and a lawsuit should be tabled against the council. In the case, Lance and his wife as the plaintiffs need to find out whether the Parramatta council has been convicted in such a tort case in the past. The result would be a criminal case opened for the Council for their acts of negligence. (Bambra, 2009). Andrews Case vs. Smith’s Auto According to common law, and in particular contract law, agreements are documented objects that are subject to be adhered to, in the instance where two or even more parties have signed and they need to conform to the rules and regulations in the contract, failure to which, legal action may be the last resort. In the case of Andrews Case against Smith’s Auto, various breaches can be identified in the occurrence of that nature. Primarily, the elements that are stipulated in the contract present some level of acceptance and compliance to the contract. (Askew, 2011). This means that mutual responsibility is a factor to be considered, and legal measures are at the discretion of either party that is members of the contract. Essentially, some level of evidence of contract and atrocities can be in writing or physically, however some cases may involve the conduct of oral and damages, that are then subject to a facilitation of breach of law or contract. In the event of a violation, the parties may agree to settle it down in a form of monetary refund or a service that is forced by the particular injunction. The person who loses some property under contract may be liable to get a bargain for the damages as will be discussed in the Andrews Case vs. Smith’s Auto. The decision by a court of law may act in a way to offer estoppels that are promissory. (Gray, 2002). It is true that the situation of the case of Andrews Case vs. Smith's Auto facilitates the enforcement of the promise in the scenario where a situation occurred or did not happen. Such jurisdictions can be distinct, and they may be modified according to the situation at hand. Mostly, promises are made to inculcate the force of the contract and thus jurisdiction for legal action can be considered if the conditions are not met or a breach of the contractual law occurs. The cases must have the initial intention of a legal bound between the parties and consideration, for example, notices can be introduced to facilitate the agreement to be achieved. (Gray, 2002). In the case of Andrew's Case vs. Smith's Auto witnesses and physical damage will be used as an evidence of a grievance by the plaintiff so that he can be compensated, however, this must be within the legal grounds of the contract between Smith’s Auto and Andrew. (Askew, 2011). Andrews Case vs. Smith's Auto, breach of contract, occurs under the following legal terms; The performance of an action stipulated in the contractual agreement. Similarly, the non-performance of an action or service that is well put out and communicated in the accord. Partial performance of the contractual agreement Differing performance of the service that is contrary to the agreement or reasonable expectation of one or more parties. The above four atrocities are a case of mentioning as a breach of understanding in the situation, having considered the nature of compensatory measures for the damages to Andrew. It is evident that Andrew always used the Smith’s Auto service for his car’s service. The terms and conditions that affect a customer once he or she brings a car for service at Smith’s Auto garage. The sign to this effect is in fact stipulated at the counter of Smith's Auto. (Askew, 2011). Andrew should have read the sign so that he can be careful when signing the invoice. By signing the invoice, Andrew confirmed that the repair work was satisfactory, and Smith's Auto has neither responsibility nor compensation for any damages caused by Andrew’s car. In this case, Andrew should have signed the document upon confirmation that his car was clean and everything was in place. Andrew signed the invoice as a matter of trust because he had used Smith's Auto. His GPS was missing, and the car was damaged in a way to show that it was involved in an accident. Andrew should have been more careful and by signing the document, he has already given away his rights to lodge a case against Smith’s Auto garage. The options that Andrew had are limited; however, investigations can be launched to prove that thieves actually entered the garage and dismantled his car though the alarm was on. The evidence must now be supplied by Smith’s Auto and Andrew must push the management of the garage to produce this evidence. (Askew, 2011). The Smith’s Auto management can get this evidence from CCTV cameras installed in the premises of the garage. Andrew’s options are further limited by the signs that were on the counter of Smith’s Auto. However, Andrew can urge out that the notices were not clear, and he was in a hurry to engage in other business. The legal element cannot protect Andrew sufficiently because he signed the invoice. Therefore, he will pay for his negligence. By employing the law functions, Andrew may get compensation if the garage was insured against theft or other atrocities. However, the case of the being hit outside the premises of the garage is not subject to any jurisdiction of compensation. Andrew's own comprehensive insurance cover may cater for the case, and he is subject to any errors that may have been made in the parking of the car while he was at the cafe. The jurisdiction of the damages in a legal case is only specific to Smith's Auto garage premises. (Gray, 2002). References Askew, D. (2011). The Principles of Law and Business: A Guide to Common Law Acton: Australian National University. Bambra, C., (2009). Strategic review of Law of Tort in International Contracts, Marmot Review). Task group, 8. Gray, B. (2002). Law of Tort. Civil Law in the Community, 10(2), 112-122. Read More