(PDF) Business Law Assignment : Heller & Partners Ltd
Added on 2021-04-24
6 Pages1029 Words76 Views
Running head: BUSINESS LAW0Business LawAssignment
BUSINESS LAW1Answer 1IssueThe issue is whether Richard can file a suit against Emma for reimbursement of the damagesthat occurred because she gave wrong information to Richard.LawAccording to the doctrine of negligent misrepresentation, a party will be liable forreimbursement of damages if he/she has made a statement without having sufficient reasonfor believing in the statement’s truth that caused financial loss to another party. ApplicationIn this situation, Richard can file a suit against Emma based on the principle of negligentmisrepresentation. Emma provided wrong information to Richard without having a sufficientreason for believing in the truth of the statement. Emma has to ensure that she gives the rightinformation to customers since she is the store manager. In Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller& Partners Ltd (1972) 3 WLR 502 case, the court provided guidelines for establishingnegligent misrepresentation in a case1. The court provided four conditions for negligentmisrepresentation which include a fiduciary relationship, the party who is giving adviceassumed the risk, reliance on the advice, and such reliance is reasonable. In this case, Emmaand Richard have a fiduciary relationship, and Emma understands that giving wronginformation can cause financial loss to Richard. Richard relied on the advice, and it is areasonable reliance because Emma is the store manager.ConclusionIn conclusion, Richard can file a suit against Emma based on the principle of negligentmisrepresentation because she failed to maintain her duty of care.1Kit Barker, Ross Grantham, and Warren Swain, eds.Law of Misstatements: 50 Years on from Hedley Byrne v Heller. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015.
BUSINESS LAW2Answer 2IssueThe issue is whether George can ask for the additional amount of rent from Richard as per theterms of the lease after saying that he did not have to pay such amount.LawThe doctrine of promissory estoppel provides that even if a valid contract does not existbetween two parties, a party can take benefit of a promise. It provides that a promise can beenforced by the court as a contract even without a formal consideration.ApplicationThe provision of promissory estoppel was given by Denning J in the leading case of CentralLondon Property Trust Ltd v High Trees Ltd (1947) KB 1302. Based on this doctrine, Richardcan enforce the promise of George in which he stated that Richard did not have to payadditional rent for 2016. Similarly, in Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten (1955) 1 WLR761 case, the court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel stops a party from goingback on their promise3.ConclusionIn conclusion, George has to act on his promise, and he cannot ask for additional rent fromRichard based on the lease agreement.2Bipin Indurkhya. "On the Role of Metaphor in Creative Cognition."ICCC. 2010.3Ciaran Gallagher. "Should the" Doctrine of Consideration" be abolished?." (2016).
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Business Law Assignment Sample PDFlg...
|6
|1360
|163
(Solved) Assignment on Business Law (pdf)lg...
|6
|1417
|114
Negligent Misstatement Assignmentlg...
|6
|1042
|129
Business and Corporation Law: Assignmentlg...
|7
|1337
|35
(Sample) Assignment on Business Lawlg...
|7
|1240
|44
(Solution) Contract Law : Assignmentlg...
|7
|1263
|90