logo

HI6027 - Business and Corporation Law

6 Pages1493 Words82 Views
   

Holmes Institute Sydney

   

HI6027 Business and corporations Law (HI6027)

   

Added on  2020-03-04

About This Document

In this document, we will discuss the negligence of MacTools Ltd which can require them to compensate the injured parties for their losses. MacTools Ltd is the manufacturer and Aurora is the consumer . Also,we cover the case of Paris v Stepney Borough council and In the matter of MacTools Ltd’s liability towards Jessie.

HI6027 - Business and Corporation Law

   

Holmes Institute Sydney

   

HI6027 Business and corporations Law (HI6027)

   Added on 2020-03-04

ShareRelated Documents
HI6027 - Business and Corporation Law_1
CASE STUDY2IssueWhether MacTools Ltd can be held liable for negligence to Aurora, and Jessie, or not?LawNegligence is covered under the tort law and it denotes a civil wrong done by the parties. An incident of negligence takes place when a duty of care was owed by one party to another, andthere was a contravention of this obligation, resulting in grave or serious harm to the individual to which this duty was owed (Legal Services Commission, 2013). For claiming a case of negligence, there is a need to show the presence of six different elements, which include the dutyof care, its violation, resulting damages/ harm/ loss, the loss not being too remote, foreseeability and the direct causation between the injury and the breach of duty of care (Legal Services Commission, 2016). Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 is a landmark English case which deals with negligence. In this case, the plaintiff consumed the ginger beer from the bottle manufactured by the defendant. This was due to the fact that the bottle contained a dead snail due to which the drink was contaminated. The plaintiff ultimately fell sick and initiated claim against the manufacturer. The court held that manufacturer was liable in this case due to the neighbor test. The reason for holding this was that the two people had a close relation between them, where theactions undertaken by one directly affected the other (E-Law Resources, 2017a). Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 was a case where the defendant was held liable for negligence, due to the fact that they failed to provide the required safety gear to
HI6027 - Business and Corporation Law_2
CASE STUDY3plaintiff. So, when the plaintiff worked, a rusty bolt fell apart and hit him in his only working eye. Ultimately, the plaintiff lost his sight and sued the council for breaching their duty of care. The court agreed that the duty was breached as the safety gear was needed, especially when the council knew that the plaintiff had only one working eye (E-Law Resources, 2017b). In order for the claim of negligence to stand, the damages have to be substantial and cannot be remote. Further, there is a requirement of the damages being foreseeable (Emanuel andEmanuel, 2008, p. 170). Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 132 ER 490 was a case where the defendant had, time and again, been warned about the haywire catching fire as there was a lack of proper ventilation in the building in which it was kept. As the defendant did not listen to these warnings,the court held him liable for negligence. The court also stated that a reasonable person would have considered these warnings and so, the plaintiff had to be compensated (E-Law Resources, 2017c). There is also a need to establish that the negligence occurred directly as a result of negligence of the other party. In other words, there is a need to prove that the actions of the defendant resulted in the harm or loss to the plaintiff. Once all these elements can be proved, a case of negligence can be made and the damages can be claimed (Statsky, 2011, p. 18).Upon a case of negligence being made, a counter claim which can be made by the defendant is highlighting the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. In such cases, the defendantshows that the person, who was injured, had made contribution towards the injuries sustained by him. When the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is established, the damages awarded to him are reduced by a sum decided by the court (Dongen, 2014, p. 8). Where a person exposes themselves to danger, they would be held to have contributed towards injures sustained by him.
HI6027 - Business and Corporation Law_3

End of preview

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

Related Documents
LAW220 Business Organisations Law | CSU
|6
|1452
|89

NEGLIGENCE 7 Business Law Assignment Case Study 21-Aug-17
|7
|1478
|124

Issues In Business and Corporation Law
|6
|1021
|100

Law Assignment | Commercial & Corporation Law
|6
|1401
|86

LAW 6 qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
|6
|1082
|429

Commercial Law BULAW5914 | Assignment
|14
|3553
|99