Legal and Ethical Issues in Business

This assignment delves into the complex world of legal and ethical considerations for contemporary businesses. It examines various aspects, including contract law, business ethics, corporate social responsibility, whistleblower protection, political risk, offshoring, and Islamic finance principles. The goal is to analyze how these factors influence business decisions and operations, highlighting both opportunities and risks.

ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION FORM
This sheet must be submitted with your assignment. Failure to complete, sign and
submit this form will result in a mark of ‘0’ for the assignment.
Student Name Olimpia Nastase
Student ID P1031849
Assessor Name Chukwuemeka Eziefula
Qualification HND Business management
Unit Number & Unit Title
Assignment Title Aspects of contracts and negligence for business
Date of Submission
By submitting this form and signing below, I declare that:
 I am the author of this assignment and that any assistance I received in its preparation is
fully disclosed and acknowledged in this assignment
 I also certify that this assignment was prepared by me specifically for this course
 I certify that I have taken all reasonable precautions to make sure that my work has not
been copied by other students
 I confirm that I have understood the College’s regulations on plagiarism
 I confirm that research resources are fully acknowledged
Signature: Olimpia Nastase…………..………… Date: 03/04/2017…………………
Plagiarism is presenting somebody else’s work as your own. It includes: copying information
directly from the Web or books without referencing the material; submitting joint coursework
as an individual effort; copying another student’s coursework; stealing coursework from
another student and submitting it as your own work. Suspected plagiarism will be investigated
and if found to have occurred will be dealt with according to the procedures set down by the

ASPECTS OF CONTRACT AND
NEGLIGENCE IN BUSINESS

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................3
TASK 1.1................................................................................................................................3
TASK 1.2................................................................................................................................5
TASK 1.3................................................................................................................................6
TASK 2.1................................................................................................................................7
TASK 2.2a..............................................................................................................................8
TASK 2.2................................................................................................................................8
Task 3.1...................................................................................................................................9
Task 3.2.................................................................................................................................10
Task 3.3.................................................................................................................................10
Task 4.1(a)............................................................................................................................11
TASK 4.1(b).........................................................................................................................12
1............................................................................................................................................12
2............................................................................................................................................12
TASK 4.2..............................................................................................................................13
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................14
REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................15

INTRODUCTION
The English legal system is governed by the principles of Common law and is derived
from various sources. Under the purview of this system, business units can be made liable for
causing loss/injury to others either by imposing contractual liability or tort liability. The former
requires the parties to be bound by a contractual relationship whereas the latter does not need any
specific relationship for making the entity liable (Amin, 2013). Law of contract is the governing
law which has been enlisted in the form of a statute enacted by the legislation. However, Tort
law has been developed on the basis of various judicial pronouncements which the Common law
countries have been making over the years. The present research sought to focus upon
understanding of the basic concepts of Contract law as well as Tort law. In pursuance to the same
the present research shall be classified into two parts. Part A shall illustrate the elements of
contract which are necessary for formation of a valid contract. In addition, varied terms of
contract shall be described to be contained within a contract. Part B shall highlight the principle
of negligence and its application in business scenarios (Ausness, 2010). Further, the doctrine of
vicarious liability shall also be discussed to ascertain the liabilities which are imposed in
employer-employee relationship.
PART A – CONTRACT
TASK 1.1
Contract is a legally binding agreement which empowers the parties to enforce the terms
in the event of breach by any of the parties to contract. The essential elements which are
necessary to be included within the process of formation of a contract are:
 Offer - Acceptance
 Legal capacity
 Consideration
 Privity of Contract Intention to create legal relations
Offer

It connotes the intention of one of the parties to enter into an enforceable relation. The
person who at the first instance make an offer can be termed as Offeror and the other person to
whom it is communicated is characterized as offeree. It is essential to effectively communicate
the offer to the other party and clearly inform the offeree about the intention to formulate a
binding relation, as otherwise it cannot be enforced in court (Bridgeman and Goldberg, 2012).
However, there is a difference between offer and invitation to treat as the latter is not an essential
element. Moreover, it merely is an invitation by a person to the public to make offers in relation
to specific objects. For instance a shopkeeper by displaying his goods in the shop with a price tag
is making an invitation to treat to all the potential customers. It was held in the case of Carlill v
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, 1893 that offer can be made to a specific person or to the whole world,
demonstrating statement to pay a speific sum shows intent of the party, acceptance can be
through performance so the offer made by the defendant in this case was a valid offer. Offer is
responded with an acceptance of all the terms contained within the offer, however, if the offeree
makes an acceptance with certain modifications, it shall amount to a counter offer.
Acceptance
The term acceptance refers to the positive response of the offeree against the offer so
made. In order to create a valid contract it is essential for the parties to make a clear as well as
unconditional acceptance which is effectively communicated (Brown and Clinton, 2010). In
other words, the offeree shall agree to each of the terms which is made in offer and not make any
changes. It was held in the case of Entorres v Mile Far East that acceptance must be received by
the offeror till it is effective. Thus, communication is imperative for the acceptance to be valid
and binding on the offeror. In the case of Adams v. Linsdell (1818) the court propounded the
postal rule wherein the offer-acceptance rule was modified to adjust in situations of
communicating through letter. It was held that if the acceptance is posted, then it becomes
binding against the offeror at the time of posting, whereas the offeree shall be made bound only
when the letter is received by the offeror. However, the gist remains that an effective
communication of acceptance is necessary, as otherwise it may not make a valid contract.
Consideration
Consideration means something in return which is of value in the eyes of law. It connotes
the attribute of reciprocity in a contractual relationship, wherein one of the parties promise to act

or omit to act in a specific manner, against a promise to receive a benefit. Thus, in this case one
of the parties has to bear certain detriments and the other enjoys the benefit. Further it shall move
to the promisor from the promisee and shall be just sufficient enough to support the contract. As
per the case of Collins v Godefrey, 1831, an existing public duty of one party cannot be used as
consideration for new promise. Moreover, if the party acts towards existing contractual duty, that
would not amount to valid consideration. In the event a contract is evidenced by an illegal
consideration, it shall be considered as void ab intio and shall not confer any rights to the parties.
Types of consideration which can be exchanged between a party are:
Past Consideration: An act or omission which has already been accomplished before the date of
entering into agreement is known as past consideration. In the case of Re Mc Ardle (1951) it was
opined by the court that a consideration shall not be a past in nature, unless specifically agree
upon by the parties.
Present Consideration: Movement of this type of consideration is simultaneous with the
exchange of promise. In the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson (1861) it was opined by the court that
these considerations are completely valid in nature, if within the periphery of legal requirements.
Future Consideration: This form of consideration is agreed to be exchanged between the parties
at a future date. It is considered valid in nature as opined in the case of Ward v. Byham (1956).
Executory Contract: promises are exchanged between the parties to be undertaken in the future.
In the case of Carllil Carbolic the court opined that Bilateral contracts are executory contracts, as
the one of the parties shall perform the promise in future date.
Executed Contract: in the event one of the parties to contract agree to act in a specific manner in
response to the act performed by the other party, then it is known as executed contract as held in
the case of Price v. Easton (1833)
Intention of Parties
All the parties shall intend to develop a legal relation while entering into such
agreements. Domestic Agreements are entered into between parties who are connected to each
other through family or any other form of relationship. Where as social agreements are the
commitment which are unofficially agreed upon by people in a society. In the case of Balfour v.
Balfour (1919) it was opined by the court that in the case of domestic as well as social

arrangements, a presumption of intention to form contractual relation is absent and thus, they are
not considered as valid contract. However, in Jones v Vernon’s Pools Ltd (1938) the court
observed that in the case of commercial agreements, it shall be presumed that parties intended to
create a legal relation to be enforced in court of law. Commercial or business Agreements are the
contractual relationships which is developed between parties with the intention to carry on a
business transaction or deal.
Legal Capacity
The parties who are major, financially as well as mentally capable can only enter into a
contract. In the event any of parties who are incompetent under law to form a contract, enters
into such relation then the agreement shall be considered as void ab intio (Burnham, 2014).
However, this is subject to the exception of necessity wherein a minor is allowed to enter into
contracts for necessity.
Privity of Contract
This is a doctrine in pursuance to which a contract can provide for rights and obligations
for only those who are party to the contract. Thus, no third party has the right to file suit for
breach of the terms of contract. It was held in the case of Dunlop v Selfridge 1915 that third party
may sue the capacity of another. As per the Third Party Right Act, 1999, third party is allowed to
enforce the terms of contract if it is beneficial to them or enforcement of which is allowed by the
contract. It also provides them various remedies available in case of breach of contract.
TASK 1.2
Contracts can be bifurcated into various types on the basis of the processes involved in
formation of the same. A contract can be in the form of Bilateral and Unilateral contract, wherein
the former involved more than one party from the point of initiation of the process of formation,
whereas in the latter case only an offeror is the ascertained party. Unilateral contracts make an
offer to the public in general and once an acceptance is received by anyone, in the form of assent
or performance, the contract turns into a bilateral contract (Cousy, 2013). In effect, both the
parties are bound by the terms from commencement of contract in bilateral contracts whereas
only the offeror is bound in the case of unilateral contract.
Agreements which are invalid or unlawful from the point of initiation of the relation are
termed as void contract. On the other hand, contracts which entitle one of the parties to terminate

the relation for breach of the terms by another party, is termed as voidable contract. The former
does not confer any rights on the parties as it is void ab inito and the latter is considered valid
upto the point it is made voidable (Ford, 2010).
Distance Selling Contracts are agreements which are undertaken by the parties from
distant regions. Contracts entered into for online shopping or through telephones or emails can be
classified under this head. This is high probability for mistake of identity or misrepresentations
as the parties are not able to verify each other's identity.
TASK 1.3
Express terms: Terms which are entered into contract after mutual agreement between parties.
All the parties are under an obligation to abide by the terms, and non-compliance of the same
shall make them liable for payment of damages.
Implied terms: These terms are made a part of contract through custom, in fact or by law (Fried,
2015). Are applicable and enforceable against the parties in the same manner as express terms.
Condition: Formulate to be fundamental terms of contract, which shall be adhered to for
fulfillment of primary object of contract. Non-compliance of the same shall restrict the
performance of parties and hence, has the effect of repudiating the entire contract. The court
upheld this view in Poussard v. Spiers (1876) and held that these terms are so essential to be
complied with that the parties shall be rendered incapable to perform the contract if any of the
party fail to abide by conditions. It is important to note that the rationale of inclusion of these
terms is in relation to the primary object of formation of contract by the parties.
Warranty: Terms which support the performance of contract or induce the parties to enter into a
contract, however are not fundamental in nature. In Bettini v. Gye (1876) it was opined by the
court that the aggrieved party is not entitled to terminate the contract. Violation of these terms
entitle the innocent parties to claim damages for all the injuries or losses sustained (Ghafa, Ismail
and Tohirin, 2010). Inclusion of these terms is in relation to supporting the performance of terms
of the contract, and non-compliance shall not have the effect of restricting the parties from
performing the contract. Moreover, the parties are made to suffer losses or injuries in
consequence of this violation.
Innominate terms: These are the intermediate terms which are difficult to be classified into
conditions or warranties. The effect of breach of these terms enable the court to either classify it
as a condition or warranty. This term was enunciated by the court in Hong Kong Shipping v.

Kawasaki Kisen (1962), wherein it was opined by the court that the nature of these terms is such
that it is not possible to classify them into conditions or warranties. Thus, the classification is
done on the basis of the effect of breach of these terms. Hence, in the event the injury is
fundamental in nature, then the term shall be classified as Condition, otherwise it would be
treated as warranty.
Exclusion clause: Exemption clauses operate to restrict or limit the liability of the concerned
parties in the event of negligence. If incorporated and constructed in a valid or lawful manner, it
shall protect the concerned party from payment of damages.
TASK 2.1
EMA advertises to sell an Airbus for an amount of £10.4m. Later, Phil communicates his
intention to purchase the bus after 5 days for a price of £100,000 to Joseph, EMA if they agree to
not sell it in the meantime. EMA agrees.
In the instance validity of relation between the two entities is required to be determined
(Herijanto, 2016). In the present the advertisement of EMA is an invitation to offer which does
not conclude into a valid contract, as the response from the end of Phil was not with the same
terms. Thus, an entirely new offer has been made by Phil, who is now an offeror to EMA, the
offeree. Joseph on behalf of EMA makes an unconditional acceptance of the offer. It is
supported by the consideration of £100,000 against the commitment of not making a sale of 5
days. Moreover, in accordance to the approach followed in Jones v. Vernor's Pools Ltd. (1938) it
shall be presumed in the instant case as well that the parties had an intention to create a binding
relation when communicating their respective offer and acceptance. The rationale behind the
same is that it is a business or commercial relation. Moreover, both the parties are legally
competent to enter into contract, in accordance to the case of De Francesco v. Barnum (1889)
Hence, all the elements of contract are present in the case to form a valid contract
between Joseph and Phil.
TASK 2.2(a)
A contract is entered into between parties for supply of mobile phones, which can be
immediately used in UK (Hisham and et. al., 2013).
(a) In the event such phones are illegal to be used in UK, it shall amount to a breach of a
condition. This could be ascertained from the fact that contract contained a term which required
the phones to be of such a nature that they can be used on an instant basis. However, use of these

phone turns out to be illegal and breaches the condition. In the case of Poussard v. Spiers (1876)
it was held that conditions are essential terms of contract, non-compliance of which shall
repudiate the entire contract and render it void ab initio.
(b) In the event the mobiles supplied requires tuning of the frequency for each of the
phone supplied, then the term of warranty is breached which required phones to used on an
instant basis. It is important to consider that unlike breach of a condition, the parties are not made
incapable to perform. Further, in the case of Bettini v. Gye (1876) it was observed by the court
that breach of a warranty shall make the wrongdoer liable for payment of damages.
TASK 2.2
Cathy has been visiting Brakes Ltd. for servicing of her car and at each of the occasions
she was made to sign a contract containing an exclusion clause. However, on the last visit Cathy
was given a receipt, unlike the usual signing of contract, which had an exclusion clause written
on the back. When Cathy left from the garage, she collided with a tree because of losing control
over steering. It was found that the mechanic negligently forgot to reconnect the steering
mechanism, and this fact is also being accepted by Brakes Ltd (Jayaraman and et. al., 2013).
However, they are not accepting the liability of damages, relying on the exemption clause
mentioned on the receipt (Hisham and et. al., 2013).
(b) In accordance to the principle followed in the case of British Crane Hire v. Ipswich
Plant Hire (1974) exclusion clause shall be considered valid, in spite of being incorporated
improperly, if it is established that the same term was made consistently applicable in all the
previous dealings. Hence, in the present case also it is clear that the parties were including the
exclusion term in previous dealings and hence, the same shall form a part of the contract.
Moreover, the fact that the clause was mentioned on the receipt shall not have any relevance as
held in the case of Spurling Ltd. v. Bradshaw (1996).
(c) The validity of exclusion clause shall also be governed on the basis of legality. In
pursuance to the same, section 2 of Unfair Contract Terms Act states that in case of personal
injury or death, the party cannot take recourse under exclusion clause. Moreover, in accordance
to section of Consumer rights act, 2015 the supplier of services or goods is required to have acted
in a reasonable and careful manner (Jakobsen, 2010). It is an established law that in the event an
individual fails to abide by the same, he/she shall not be entitled to take recourse under exclusion
clause. Similarly, in the present case the mechanic failed to act in a reasonable manner and is in

clear violation of Consumer Rights Act, 2015. This directly implies that Brakes Ltd. shall be
liable to pay damages to Cathy.
PART B: TORT LAW
TASK 3.1
These are regulated by the law to make a contract between the parties with the rights and
duties. Under a business various transactions for the sale of goods and services making by the
parties. Tort law addresses the situation where a person harmed by the act of another parties. In
case of negligence person is liable for the damaged caused to the other party.
Differences between Contract and Tort laws:
In a contract both the parties should give their consent to the agreement to make a valid
contract and no one can influence to another person to give their acceptance on this. Under tort
there is no consent involve by one party and it prevent from any damage caused by the act of the
party.
If any party breaches the conditions of the contract then liable for the loss incurred by the
other party. In tort claim injury cause to a person awarded with the compensatory amount by the
defendant by the decision of the court (Lipshaw, 2011).
Similarities between Contract and Tort laws:
If any party fails to perform his duty then another party is liable for the remedy for breach
of contract. Any party has duty of care and he have not maintain this liable for the damage
caused by other party. Under both the situation monetary payments made to the party for any loss
caused to him. There must be the relation between illegal action and damage occurred to the
parties.
TASK 3.2
Parties can claim the negligence if one party suffers from damages or loss. Claimant must
showed the breach of duty of care of the defendant. Parties can face monetary or physical loss by
the act of the parties. There is need to prove the breach of duty of care that causes damages.
Claimant should have the evidence that there was the breach of duty by the defendant and it
caused injury to him. Court will have decide by the evidence of the parties and compensate the
other person for the loss. There should be the relationship between the claimant and defendant
that must be reasonable to the parties (Mayer, 2011). Defendant must have the reasonable care
for hid duty. Once the liability has been decided then consider the remedies that would have been

in the breach of of negligence not taken place. For negligence, claimant must prove the that the
tort had been committed and caused injury to him.
Nature of negligence imposed by the law rather to agreed between the parties. Once a
duty of care is being held, the defendants action are judged by his position. In this case Caparo
Industries pIc v Dickman[1990] 2 AC 605 Court has decided that No duty of care was owed.
There was not sufficient proximity between Caparo and the auditors since the auditors were not
aware of the existence of Caparo nor the purpose for which the accounts were being used by
them.
TASK 3.3
Employer is liable for the act conducted by any person in a business situations. Employer
always liable for any wrongful act done by the person in the course of employment which
damages to the other party. Many employers are not aware with this liability if any act done byb
their employees in their business like breaking of rules, violation and harassment. There is the
conditions which may exist in the condition to make liable-
1. Relationship between employer and employee: There should be the relationship between
both of them to create the vicarious liability (Melé, Argandoña and Sanchez-Runde,
2011). Employers' liability not end if employee leave the business due to action continues
again him in the court. Employer need to make sure that they have taken care all the
actions in their organisation by equal policy and anti-discrimination acts by the
employees. Moreover, they shall also be able to clear the Control Test, in pursuance to
which it shall be established that the employer has been exercising control over the work
being carried out by the employee, as held in Walker v, Crystal Palace Football Club
(1910). Further, integration test shall be applied to ascertain whether the employee is
engaged under 'contract of service' or 'contract for service'. In Cassidy v, Ministry of
Health (1951) this test was discussed to determine vicarious liability of employer. Lastly,
Multiple Test shall be applied as also upheld in Ready Mixed Contcrete Ltd. v. MPNI
(1968). this is a multi-factorial test which is an integration of the above two test, with a
major emphasis on the control test.
2. Tort committed in the course of employment: where an employee performs his duty and it
cause losses to other person then employer is liable for his act. If there is any negligence
occurs by a person then he is responsible for the vicarious liability. It involves to dealing

in an effective environment, equal policy and resolving the problems. In this case Latimer
v AEC [1953] AC 643 House of Lords held that there was no breach of duty and no need
to close the factory. Defendant should take reasonable precautions to maintain the risk
which they had done at the premise. There was no liability to close the factory and no
need to make any expenses to eliminate any possible risk.
Task 4.1(a)
Carlos is a banker who had invited Janet for evening dinner at very expensive English
restaurant King's. They shared the celebration of his success with the main course in a
particularly English wine with good vintage (Middlemiss, 2011). He ordered a cake and coffee
for her and choose chocolate ice cream for himself. Janet enjoying the food and eating the cake
with full of fun and she got spluttered and spat out a decomposed insect. Due to the poisoning in
the food she suffer nervous shock and collapsed after eating this. Carols paid the restaurant bill
cost £100 because of no further embarrassment at the restaurant. There is the duty of the owner
of the restaurant to maintain the quality of the food. Owner of the restaurant is liable any injury
caused to its customer at their restaurant. Negligence is the situation where a person is liable for
the act if any damage caused with his act. Janet continue ill and Carlos took her home. Janet
caused suffer from the unhygienic cake which contains impure bacteria for many days. Janet and
Carlos can get the compensation amount from the company. To prove the liability in law there
should be some points which need to clear:
a) There should be the breach of duty by a person.
b) Claimant causes the damage from his action.
c) Defendant must owe the duty of care.
In a case Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 The House of Lords
held that the defendant did owe a duty of care to ensure the foundations were of the correct
depth. Lord Wilberforce introduced a two stage test for imposing a duty of care.

TASK 4.1(b)
1.
Tort of professional negligence misstatement can be determined when a party having
expertise, skills and knowledge regarding a particular subject matter provides an inaccurate
statement to the other party not possessing same skills (Lipshaw, 2011).
It was held in the case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v. Heller & Partners that at the time of
deciding whether a party should be held liable for tort of negligence misstatement, it should be
determined that statement was made carelessly where party has the duty to be honest and careful
and such carelessness results in loss of other party relying on that statement.
In this regard, another factor that needs to be taken in account is whether the party has
assumed responsibility for the statements made according to the case of Chaudry v. Prabhakar
(Jakobsen, 2010). The burden of proof lies on claimant that there was breach of duty of care and
he suffered loss due to such breach and then, he can be compensated for physical loss of property
or financial loss due to such misrepresentation.
2.
The given case is in the context of tort of professional negligence misstatement and
vicarious liability (Restubog, Zagenczyk, and Tang, 2013). In this case, Angelina went to
Christian Auctioneers for valuation of furniture and for that purpose the said company sent one
of his employees named Brad to her house. After the task was done, Angelina asked Brad about
valuation of a painting but the said company instructed Brad for not giving any advice on matters
outside his field. So, he stated he has no knowledge about valuation of painting but in his opinion
it was not of much worth. She then sold the painting to an old neighbour for £100 but after few
weeks she came across a headline in local paper stating that a jackpot was hit by pensioner with
rare Rembrandt for £100 underneath was the picture of the painting she sold.
Brad would not be liable for the tort of professional negligence in this case as he did not
give advice in professional capacity and he clearly stated that it he does not have knowledge
regarding subject matter, so, he just gave only an opinion (Sullivan, 2011). Christian Auctioneers
would not be held for vicarious liability as the act done by Brad was not in the course of
employment.

TASK 4.2
The tort law provides for defenses to the party in case of tort of negligence misstatement
which are described below (Ausness, 2010) :
 Contributory negligence : In this, defendant needs to prove that the damage was caused
to negligence of both the parties i.e. both parties partly contributed to the
misrepresentation. It is a partial defence whereby loss suffered is apportioned by both the
parties as held in the case of Nettleship v Weston, 1971. The defendant is required to
prove that claimant did not take proper care for his own safety as per the case of Davies
v Swan Motor co [1949. Also, according to the case of Capps v Miller, 1989, it is to be
demonstrated that such failure was the contributory cause of loss suffered.
Volenti non fit injura : This defence can be used by the defendant when the claimant after
assuming the risk involved in the act has voluntarily acted. The foremost requirement is party has
freely and voluntarily consented for the act. It was held in the case of White v Blackmore, 1972
that there should exist an agreement between both the parties and lastly as per the case of
Wooldridge v Sumner & Anor, 1963, party should have knowledge of extent and nature of risk
involved in such act.

CONCLUSION
From the above report it has been observed that parties making a valid contract by
following the terms of the agreement. Under a business persons making a business for supply of
goods and services by following the guidelines in their agreement. Tort law governs where
person causes loss to another person by his act of negligence. The principle of vicarious liability
is applicable where employer is liable for the misconduct act done by the employee in course of
employment. Any wrong act done by a person at his workplace, court will decide to compensate
the claim of the injured person or not. Business follows the terms and conditions of the contract
that can be express or impress also. There are many situations discussed in the the report where
parties are liable for the actions. Court will decide the liability after discussing with the evidences
of the parties where they can prove them.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Amin, N., 2013. Protecting consumers against unfair contract terms in Malaysia: the Consumer
Protection (Amendment) Act 2010.Malayan Law Journal. 1, pp.1-11.
Ausness, R. C., 2010. Risky Business: Liability of Product Sellers Who Offer Safety Devices as
Optional Equipment. Hofstra L. Rev. 39. p.807.
Bridgeman, C. and Goldberg, J.C., 2012. Do promises distinguish contract from tort?.
Brown, J.H. and Clinton, M., 2010.Horse Business Management: managing a successful yard.
John Wiley & Sons.
Burnham, S.J., 2014. Are You Free to Contract away from Your Right to Bring a Negligence
Claim.Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 89 p.379.
Cousy, H.A., 2013. About sanctions and the hybrid nature of modern insurance contract law.
Browser Download This Paper.
Ford, D.G., 2010. The Ethical Duties and Prohibitions Affecting the Decision of an Attorney to
Blow the Whistle on an Organization Client. Mustang Journal of Law and Legal
Studies. 1 p.44.
Fried, C., 2015.Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. OUP Us.Krishnan, A.,
2013.War as Business: technological change and military service contracting. Ashgate
Publishing, Ltd..Beatty, J.F. and Samuelson, S.S., 2012.Cengage Advantage Books:
Introduction to Business Law. Cengage Learning.Rhee, R.J., 2013. The Tort Foundation
of Duty of Care and Business Judgment.
Ghafar b. Ismail, A. and Tohirin, A., 2010. Islamic law and finance. Humanomics,26(3), pp.178-
199.
Herijanto, H., 2016. The Mudharib’s Legal Responsibility for the Business Risk in Mudharabah.
Journal of Islamic Banking and Finance. 4(1) pp.22-32.
Hisham, S and et. al., 2013. The concept and challenges of Islamic pawn broking (Ar-
Rahnu).Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research,13. pp.98-102.

Jakobsen, J., 2010. Old problems remain, new ones crop up: Political risk in the 21 st
century. Business Horizons. 53(5). pp.481-490.
Jayaraman, V and et. al., 2013. Offshoring business process services and governance control
mechanisms: an examination of service providers from India. Production and
Operations Management. 22(2) pp.314-334.
Lipshaw, J. M., 2011. Contract as Meaning: An Introduction to'Contract as Promise at
30'. Contract as Promise.
Mayer, D., 2011. Legal loopholes, business ethics, and corporate legal strategy: A reply to
professor Ostas. American Business Law Journal,48(4), pp.713-763.
Melé, D., Argandoña, A. and Sanchez-Runde, C., 2011. Facing the crisis: Toward a new
humanistic synthesis for business. Journal of Business Ethics. 99(1) pp.1-4.