Business And Corporation Law Question and Answer 2022

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

BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS LAW1
Answer 1
Issue
The issue that can be applied in this case is considered to be whether the elements of
negligence are applicable in this case.
Provisions Applied
The act of negligence is considered to be an act which was committed due to carelessness
where there was a breach of the duty to take care of the other person. There are certain essential
elements of negligence such as the defendant needs to take care or owes a duty to take care of a
person or the plaintiff in the case of negligence. It can be seen in the case of Grant v Australian
Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 62.1 The duty to take care by the defendant to the plaintiff has been
breached. There needs to be a cause for such damages which has been committed by the
defendant in order to prove negligence. Lastly, such damages has caused injury or harm to the
plaintiff for which compensation is claimed or needed. It can be observed in the case of
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 1002. Therefore, to prove negligence in the court of law
theses certain conditions need to be proved in case of proving negligence.
There are certain defenses, which are law of torts against negligence. If there is an
obvious risk then it can be considered to be a defense for the defendant. The obvious risk
includes if on the request of the plaintiff the defendant has provided advice to the plaintiff where
the plaintiff was fully aware of the risks. The defendant is considered to involve in written law
about the risks that are pertaining to the plaintiffs. The obvious risk includes a person who is
reasonable and in the position of the plaintiff to understand the risks pertaining to the act which
1 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 62.
2 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100.

BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS LAW2
would be committed. The plaintiff being a reasonable person would be able to foresee the risk .
As in the case of Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 2863.
A defendant can not be considered to be liable under the inherent risk as well where the
risk which has occurred to the plaintiff is due to unavoidable circumstances which could not be
avoided even if due care was taken by the defendant for such risk. The defendant can also prove
the defense by proving that the risk was voluntarily taken by the plaintiff which would mean that
before being involved in an activity the plaintiff was fully aware of the risk that was involved
and had full knowledge about the nature of such risk and accepted it. Douglas v. Harris, 35 N.J.
270, 281, 173 A.2d 1 (1961)4 can be considered to be a case of negligence.
Comment/ Submission
From the above scenario it can be derived that a case of negligence could be made by the
plaintiff but the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant who was Sandy Robinson had acted in a
negligent way towards the plaintiff Susie Jones. From the above facts that have been mentioned
in the scenario, Susie had asked for financial advice from Sandy who went to the supermarket.
Susie wanted to ask for a financial advice regarding an investment in a company whether it
would be a good investment or whether it would turn out to be bad. Susie on getting advice from
Sandy had invested in a business which turned out to be bad. Susie as it has been mentioned in
the above provisions was considered to be a reasonable person and was aware of the risks that
were associated with investing in a company. She had full knowledge about the risks and
invested in the company knowingly. She had voluntarily been involved in the activity knowing
the risks which were associated with it. The defendant in this case can prove the defense by
proving that the risk was voluntarily taken by the plaintiff which would mean that before being
3Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286.
4 Douglas v. Harris, 35 N.J. 270, 281, 173 A.2d 1 (1961).