The primary issue in the for mentioned

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Scenario 1
Issue
The primary issue in the given scenario is that whether any kind of remedies may be
availed by Daisy, and whether any probable defenses may be raised by LST.
Rule
The case of Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 101 must be regarded as an important
case in relation to the given scenario. The primary issue in the aforementioned case, which had to
be settled was whether the ‘Ministry of Justice’ [MoJ] can be held accountable for the negligent
actions of the prisoner. The appeal forwarded by MoJ was dismissed by the Supreme Court and
held that the MoJ would be vicariously accountable in relation to the negligent actions of the
prisoner. It was stressed by the court that vicarious liability or accountability cannot be evaded
by technical or methodical arguments in connection to the employment status regarding the
person who performed the actions.
The case of Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 19132 shall be considered
to be a relevant case in relation to the given scenario. In this case, it was said that ‘vicarious
liability’ is involved in those circumstances in which any particular person has committed any
kind of tortious action, when such person was performing the actions on behalf of any other
individual. The main circumstance in which the notion of ‘vicarious liability’ will ascend is that
circumstance where some person is performing actions for an employer.
1 Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10.
2 Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913.

2BUSINESS LAW
The case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 223 must be regarded as an important
case in this regard. The question ascended that whether the employers in relation to the warden
can be considered to be vicariously accountable for the intentional sexual abuse committed by
the employee upon school boys, who all were under his care. It was held that vicarious
accountability may ascend due to unsanctioned and intentional transgressions that might be
committed by any employee who was performing actions for the benefit of his own. There
should exist a link between the transgressions and the job in order to render the transgression
within the range of the employment.
In the case of Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 4974, it was
said that three criteria should be fulfilled in order to deliver the employee status. Firstly, the
individual shall be working in lieu of remuneration. Secondly, the work of the individual is being
controlled by the employer. Thirdly, other instances such as working hours, regular payment,
provision of equipment, should be in conformity to the individual being an employee.
Application
Daisy was an individual who was employed in the position of lecturer in the ‘London
School of Talent’. She was involved in an accident where she fell because of an electric cable in
connection to a projector that was left unplugged by the previous lecturer. The accident caused
memory loss of Daisy and she forgot her studies relating to music.
Applying the case of Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 105 in the given scenario, it
may be said that ‘London School of Talent’ would be vicariously accountable in relation to the
negligent actions of the lecturer who negligently left the projector unplugged. It may be said that
3 Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22.
4 Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497.
5 Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10.

3BUSINESS LAW
vicarious liability or accountability cannot be evaded by LST shall not be able to forward any
kind of technical or methodical arguments in connection to the employment status regarding the
person who performed the actions.
Applying Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 19136 in the given scenario,
it may be said that ‘vicarious liability’ shall be involved because the lecturer who left the
projector unplugged has committed a specific tortious action, when such person was performing
the actions on behalf of any other individual or association. The main circumstance in which the
notion of ‘vicarious liability’ will ascend is that circumstance where some person is performing
actions for an employer.
In the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 227, it was held that vicarious
accountability may ascend due to unsanctioned and intentional transgressions that might be
committed by any employee who was performing actions for the benefit of his own. There
should exist a link between the transgressions and the job in order to render the transgression
within the range of the employment. Therefore, it must be proved by Daisy that the there is a link
between the transgressions and the job of the lecturer in order to render the transgression within
the range of the employment, for which LST should be held vicariously accountable.
Applying Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 4978, it may be
said that LST may take the defense that the lecturer who committed the wrong was not an
employee based on the three criteria as forwarded in this case, which are the remuneration, the
control and other instances such as working hours and provision of equipment.
6 Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913.
7 Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22.
8 Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497

4BUSINESS LAW
Conclusion
To conclude, it may be said that that the remedy of ‘vicarious liability’ may be availed by
Daisy, and the defense of whether the defaulting lecturer is an employee or not may be raised by
LST.
Scenario 2
Issue
The issue in the given scenario is whether a contract has been concluded by Daisy with
either the ‘Cheap Exercise’ gym or with Rick’s gym.
Rule
The case of RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH [2010] UKSC
149 is relevant in the given scenario. In this specific case, it was deliberated that it has been the
approach of the English courts in the formal sense that there is an existence of an agreement
where any forwarded offer is retorted by a clear and unblemished acceptance of that specific
offer.
The case of Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] EWCA Civ 310 must be
considered to be a relevant case in this regard. In this case, it was stated that once any particular
offer has been forwarded, the normal rule is that the acceptance should be communicated by the
offeree in a clear manner in order to establish a binding and an obligatory agreement.
9 RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH [2010] UKSC 14.
10 Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] EWCA Civ 3.

5BUSINESS LAW
The case of Currie v Misa [1875] LR 10 Ex 15311 must be considered to be a significant
case in this regard. As per the findings of this case, it may be said that there should exist the
element of consideration for the enforceability of any valid contract.
In the case of JSC Zestafoni Nikoladze Ferroalloy Plant v Ronly Holdings Ltd [2004]
EWHC 245 (Comm), [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 33512, it has been stated by the court that emails
should be considered as an instantaneous communication. It may be said that the sender of an
email is immediately aware of the situation that whether the email, which has been sent, has been
received and acknowledged or not, which may place emails within the scope and range of instant
communications. Therefore, as per the rule in relation to instantaneous communication, when an
acceptance is communicated with the help of an email, then it shall be understood that the offer
has been accepted as soon as the email has been sent.
Application
In the given scenario, Daisy, at first did not accept the offer by Rick because she noticed
a better offer at‘Cheap Exercise’ gym. After going there she realized that the gym had poor
facilities. Afterwards, she accepted Rick’s offer through email. However, Daisy never had
enough funds to go to Rick’s gym. Then, she requested the cancellation of the application to
Rick’s gym.
Applying the case of RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller
GmbH [2010] UKSC 1413 in the given scenario, it may be said that there is an existence of an
agreement because a forwarded offer has been retorted by a clear and unblemished acceptance of
in connection to offer.
11 Currie v Misa [1875] LR 10 Ex 153.
12 JSC Zestafoni Nikoladze Ferroalloy Plant v Ronly Holdings Ltd [2004] EWHC 245.
13 RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH [2010] UKSC 14.

6BUSINESS LAW
Applying Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] EWCA Civ 314, it may be
said that offer has been forwarded by Rick and the acceptance has been communicated by Daisy
in a clear manner in order to establish a binding and an obligatory agreement.
Applying Currie v Misa [1875] LR 10 Ex 15315, it may be said that must be considered to
be a significant case in this regard. As per the findings of this case, it may be said that there
should exist the element of consideration for the enforceability of any valid contract.
Applying the case of JSC Zestafoni Nikoladze Ferroalloy Plant v Ronly Holdings Ltd
[2004] EWHC 24516 in the given scenario, it may be said that as per the rule in relation to
instantaneous communication, when the acceptance has been communicated by Daisy with the
help of an email, and hence it must be understood that the offer has been accepted as soon as the
email has been sent.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it may be said that a contract has been concluded by Daisy with Rick’s
gym and not with ‘Cheap Exercise’ because Daisy cancelled her application to ‘Cheap Exercise’.
14 Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] EWCA Civ 3.
15 Currie v Misa [1875] LR 10 Ex 153.
16 JSC Zestafoni Nikoladze Ferroalloy Plant v Ronly Holdings Ltd [2004] EWHC 245.

7BUSINESS LAW
Bibliography
Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10.
Currie v Misa [1875] LR 10 Ex 153.
Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913.
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] EWCA Civ 3.
JSC Zestafoni Nikoladze Ferroalloy Plant v Ronly Holdings Ltd [2004] EWHC 245.
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22.
Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497.
RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH [2010] UKSC 14.