Business and Employment Law - Coursework Example

Business & Employment Law (U21764) Student Name Business Law Companies use contractual liabilities for risk transfer. Contractual liability has become a significant risk management method.1 The liability can be one of the most complicated and complex business aspects to understand. Contractual liability is the legal liability of another party that a transacting company agrees to assume the contract by a written or oral process.2 An agreement binds two or more parties legally in a contract. When one party agrees to or signs the terms of the contracts, he or she accepts the contractual liabilities present in the document. Liabilities are things that one can be held accountable for and may replace or repay in case of an event. Tort laws controls the situation where one party injures or harms the other party. It covers the case where one person harms the other intentionally. This paper will advise Bart in relation to any tortuous and contractual obligation arising from facts of cases between Bart and Poppy, Bart and Lovely Lighting Ltd, and Bart and Rosie. Poppy threatens to sue Bart for refusing to sell her a painting. Bart wants to know whether it is illegal for him not to sell the painting, which he explains to Poppy that it is not for sale, yet he runs an antique shop. The issue in this case is whether there has been a valid offer and acceptance,3 which results to a contract between Bart and Poppy. If there is a contract, Bart will need to sell the painting to Poppy. Poppy is entitled to the painting if there would be a contract between her and Bart. The question in this case is whether Bart is against the law and if Poppy is entitled to purchase the painting. The displayed goods fall under the law of contractual agreement and offer of acceptance. When a seller displays goods in a shop, this amounts to an invitation of a treat.4 Advertisement or a brochure is a seller’s or dealers solicit for an offer, but in itself, it does not amount to an offer. An offer leads to a binding contract on acceptance and an invitation for treat may not be acknowledged. It is just an invitation for an offer. If a customer makes an offer to purchase the goods on offer, the seller will decide to accept or deny the offer. In the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots [1953] 1 QB 4015 Court of Appeal, it happens that goods on display invites a potential customer to a treat. In such case, the customer enters to a contract when the sale of the good is complete. The tender decides whether to accept the offer. In this case, goods displayed, in a shop, are not, in a technical sense, on offer, but are an invitation to a treat. The painting on the window of Bart antique shop was not an offer in a technical sense but was an invitation for a treat. There was no intention that the buyer, Poppy, should complete the contract only by saying he wanted to buy – the seller, Bart, merely intended to invite offers. The opinion here is not that all advertisements are invitations to treat, but that they will be where the intent is only to summons offers to buy. Bart explained the intention of placing the painting on the window to Poppy. It is, therefore, clear that the painting was placed on the window with the intention to lure customers to the shop, but it was not in itself for sale. Contractual liability is obligatory for a reliable depiction of intentional undertaking.6 In cases where there is a true credible representation, the answer to the voluntary undertaking has no challenges and it is straightforward7. A true credible representation has a genuine voluntary responsibility. The role of Contractual liability is to protect the expectation that arises from moral duty represented by the voluntary undertaking. In the case of Bart and Poppy, it is morally right for Bart to state the motives of displaying the painting on the window. The expectations from such cases are legally legitimate since such undertaking may raise a moral obligation; hence, creating morally valid expectation. Poppyseem not to be justified to sue Bart. The painting is an invitation for a treat and not an offer. Bart buys a sign from Lovely Lighting Ltd that turns out to be defective. The sign makes him sustain injuries and loss of some of his valuable painting in his shop. The issue in this case is whether Lovely Lighting Ltd is liable to the damages and injuries that Bart incurs. When Bart signed the agreement, he entered into a contract with Lovely Lighting Ltd. The agreement stipulated clearly that the company would not accept liability in relation to the quality of the goods supplied, fitness for purpose, or whether they match any description provided. Liability acceptance would only be in cases ofdamage or personal injury. The question in this case is whether Bart was liable for compensation from Lovely Lighting Ltd for the damages he incurred. The Sale of Goods Act of 19798 stipulates strict set of rules that sellers and retailers must obey. When one buys goods, he or she enters into a contract with the party selling the goods. Bart entered into a contract with Lovely Lighting Ltd when he agreed to purchase the sign. The law of contract governs both written and oral agreements and subjects made during a transaction.9 In tort law, the Lovely Lighting Ltd should compensate Bart for the losses and the body injury he gets. The sign the company delivers is faulty, according to his description and expectation. This is negligence in the part of the company and breach of contract. In the almost similar case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, 10 Mrs. Donoghue suffers injuries that could be described as personal when she realizes remains of decomposing snails in her beer. That was negligence in the part of the manufacturers of the ginger beer. They were, therefore, liable to compensate Mrs. Donoghue for the injuries. Tort law protects consumers and enables them to acquire compensation in case of injuries or damages to their properties from defective goods. In case of Bart and Lovely Lighting Ltd, under the contract and tort law, the company is liable to compensate Bart for the injury, defective sign, and damage to his painting11. If a party neglectfully chooses to sign the agreement without understanding it, then no deception exists and the contract is enforceable.12 In this case, Bart ignores the agreement by not reading it. Lovely Lighting Ltd is, therefore, not liable for the losses and injuries Bart incurred. The third scenario involves Bart and Rosie. When Bart’s pet dog, Digby, went missing, he promised a reward of £50 to the person who would return it. Rosie finds it and returns it. Bart refuses to reward her. The issue in this scenario is whether Rosie is liable for the reward Bart promised. The question is whether there has been a valid offer leading to contract between Bart and Rosie. The reward notice is an invitation to treat. The tread leads to a contract between Bart and the person who would bring the dog back. The advert placed by Bart invited anyone who reads it to a treat. The reward is the offer that he promises anybody who will return his dog. According to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256 Court of Appeal13 the company promised, through a newspaper advert that a £100 reward would be given to the person who would contract influenza after two weeks of having the ball three times daily. Mrs. Carlill contracted the flu but the company failed to honor the agreement. The court ruled that Mrs. Carlill was liable for the reward as per the stipulation of the advert. Bart promises a reward for the return of his lost dog. This is a promise for a reward in return for an act. This makes the advertisement unilateral. The presence of an invitation to make an offer of a promise in return for an act distinguishes unilateral offer and invitation for treat. The reward note on Bart’s shop is not an advert for good for sale at a price. The analysis of the wordings indicates that a person was liable to the reward if he or she returned the dog. The conditionmakes the advertisement unilateral. Rosie accepts such an offer by bringing back the dog when she found is in the restaurant. The case can be concluded that Rosie is liable to reward. Bibliography HanochSG, 'Contractual Liability and Voluntary Undertakings' (2000) 20 OJLS 205, 220 Blythe SE,'Contractual Liability of Suppliers of Defective Software: A Comparison ofthe Lawofthe United Kingdom and United States' (2005) 26 JILB 77-94 E-lawResources, ‘Offer and acceptance’ (2010)Accessed 28 Dec 2013 Law Teacher, ‘Contract liability | law teacher’ (2012)Accessed28 Dec 2013 West GD, Lewis Jr and Benton W 'Contracting to Avoid Extra-Contractual Liability -- Can Your Contractual Deal Ever Really Be the "Entire" Deal?' (2009) 64 999-1038 Gergen MP 'Negligent Misrepresentation as Contract' (2013) 101CLR 953-1011 Witting C 'Liability for Corporate Wrongs' (2009) 28 UQLJ 113-142 Ic.gc.ca 'Corporate, Insolvency and Competition Law Policy' (2011) Accessed 28 Dec 2013 Gale Encyclopedia of Everyday Law 'Limitations of Liability' (2013) 2GVRL 831-834 Patricia Wade and Mark Lubbock 'Limitation and Exclusion of Liability' (2009) Accessed 28 Dec 2013 Table of Cases Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots [1953] 1 QB 401 Court of Appeal Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256 Court of Appeal Table of Legislation The Sale of Goods Act 1979 Abbreviations QB: Queen’s Bench AC: Appeal Cases OJLS: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies JILB: Journal of International Law & Business CLR: California Law Review UQLJ: University of Queensland Law Journal GVRL: Gale Virtual Reference Library Read More