logo

Business and Corporation Law: Assignment

   

Added on  2021-04-17

7 Pages1337 Words35 Views
 | 
 | 
 | 
Business and Corporation Law: Assignment_1

Business and CorporationsLaw2Issue 1The key issue of this case revolves around the possibility of a claim of negligent misstatement being raised against Emma by Richard.Rule 1 Misrepresentation shows the false statement of law or fact being made, so as to induce the other side of the contracting party, to go forward with the contract. There are three types of misrepresentation, one of which is negligent misrepresentation. This is also referred to as negligent misstatement. It refers to the advice or information which is given in an honest manner but which is actually misleading or inaccurate. In such cases, damages can be claimed by the aggrieved party (Yellow Pages, 2014).In order to make a claim of negligent misstatement, Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller [1963] 3WLR 101 provides the fulfilment of four points. Firstly, there has to be relationship of trust and confidence between the parties; followed by the individual giving information assuming voluntary risk; next comes the other party placing reliance over the provided information; and lastly, this reliance was reasonable based on conditions present.Application 1In the present instance, Emma negligent looked at the wrong page on the brochure while providing the information to Richard. There is a need to fulfil the four requirements placed through Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller here. There was a relation of trust and confidence between
Business and Corporation Law: Assignment_2

Business and CorporationsLaw3Emma and Richard as Richard contacted shock-absorber Company which was supposed to have the correct information. By giving the information, Emma voluntarily assumed the risk. And reasonably, Richard had placed reliance on Emma’s information due to the position held by her. The four requirements are thus fulfilled. Conclusion 1Thus, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that a claim of negligent misstatement can be raised against Emma by Richard. This would allow Richard to claim $ 2000damage from Emma.Issue 2The key issue of this case revolves around the possibility of a claim of promissory estoppel being raised by Richard against George. Rule 2Promissory estoppel is a leading concept under the contract law which stops an individualfrom going back on the promise which has been made, where the other party relied on this promise (Latimer, 2012, p. 352). The obiter statement given under Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 is of particular significance here. In this case, Denning J provided that the person who places reliance on promise of reduced compensation, cannot be allowed to go back on such promise, even when it is not supported by consideration.
Business and Corporation Law: Assignment_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Negligent Misstatement Assignment
|6
|1042
|129

(PDF) Business Law Assignment : Heller & Partners Ltd
|6
|1029
|76

(Solution) Contract Law : Assignment
|7
|1263
|90

Business Law Assignment : Emma
|7
|1297
|29

Business Law Assignment Sample PDF
|6
|1360
|163

(Solved) Assignment on Business Law (pdf)
|6
|1417
|114