Business Law Assessment: Contract, Employment Law and Tort

This essay covers a case scenario in which there observed the contract framed in between the parties and also the effective terms of the employment is observed. It discusses the validity of the contract, termination of employment, and the law of torts.

Law assessment

Table of content
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................2
TASK...............................................................................................................................................2
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
Law is command which is aligned to maintain the legal compliance through which the
administration of rules and the justice is maintained. There involves all the body of regulations
and the legislative principles which abides to manage the administration of justice and the
effective rules and practises. There implies to maintain all the legal applicability of law. In order
to manage the legislation and all the effective regulatory rules and practises all the business and
their eventual rules and principles undertakes with business law which have employment law,
tort, contract law and many other regulations in it. The Tort is civil wrong that pertains to
manage all the individual’s rights and safety. Contract law in UK serves to manage all the rules
and the agreements enforceable by law and their legal compliance (Rosher, 2018). This essay
will cover a case scenario in which there observed the contract framed in between the parties and
also the effective terms of the employment is observed.
TASK
While analysing this case scenario it is being depicted that Ross who owns a successful
organic food shop and focus on providing sources to the local produce was planning to supply
organic beef with red Gate Farm and for that he was willing to gain a three-year deal to manage
the supply. But in that period of time Rachel who is the owner of red gate form said that there is
a need of consultation regarding this proposal with the business partner (Smith and Crofton,
2019). Meanwhile Chandler and owner of high hill farm contacted Ross in order to arrange the
meeting for providing the organic beef for a three-year deal. Roz managed all the legal
documentation and set a contract between them for a three year. After getting the first
consignment there observed that one of the loyal and a regular customer Joey enquired about the
availability of beef and after knowing that it is from High heel Farm he adamant about the clarity
that they generally use fertilisers and chemical pesticides. Ross knowing about all such things as
being concerned regarding the reputation of the business became anxious and called Chandler in
order to terminate the contract I want to get the money back. While not getting a proper response
from Chandler he decided to go to his place in order to have a conversation but as due to being
drunk he asked Monica to drive him to Farm. She was not that confident about your driving but
Ross insisted her to drive later on there observe that they met with an accident which created

spinal injuries to Ross. She was being dismissed on the ground of gross missed conduct by Ross.
In the situation Chandler wife Phoebe who was already being a nervous disposition patient seen
all such scenario which cost her post-traumatic stress disorder.
Some of the main issues which are perplexing in this scenario are:
 Is Contract can be revoked or terminated by Ross.
 Is Monica liable for gross misconduct.
 Is Chandler can claim compensation for all the injury suffered by his wife.
Contract law frames agreement that is enforceable by law and also helps to maintain the
legal duties through which all the compilation and the general framework of agreements are
being managed. It involves individuals who are being interested in forming any contractual
obligations (Prewitt-White and Fisher, 2022). In order to make a contract some of the major
essential elements are being required which are like offer this is generally a proposal which is
being given by an individual as an invitation to treat in order to enter in an agreement between
them. All such offers are generally being conveyed by excepting in a mere form which is implied
as agreement between both the parties. It relies that acceptance is the agreement on the offer
raised by the one of the person which can be oral or in written. No acceptance can be agreed till
the time it is being conveyed to the parties in a proper manner (Tshibende, 2018). The third
important element required is consideration this is generally the contractual in force and the
monitory value, pecuniary value which is being discussed between the parties in order to
complete the task which is being discussed between them. Lastly there is a legal intention which
is important in both the parties as it provides a clarity and the clear state of mind that is required
so that no ill motive can be seen in the performance of task. Laugh contract also provides
remedies for the breach which is being made by the parties which are like damages that can be
termed as the loss beer by one of the party due to the act of another. Specific performance of act
which is also being an alternate remedy to provide the conditions in which the party will have to
perform the act, injunction that helps in restraining the party. As in this case Ross was in contract
with Chandler and no person is being allowed to revoke any contract or terminate it when the
agreement is being made with proper essential elements but as in Bannerman v. White (1861)
privy council held that, contract framed in the parties will have to completely being relied on the
conditions and it should be fulfilled by completing all the elements made between them. In this
case Claimant made an agreement to purchase hopes for making beer and when asked that

whether there is any kind of use of sulphur in making of hopes defendant denied by saying that
there is no sulphur mixed in it. There was a representation in the contract by making an
assurance that there is all the conditions in the elements being framed but later seem that a
breach of contract was made so the termination can be applied. In this case Chandler was well
aware that Ross want organic beef and it was already mentioned in the criteria in contract paper
but still he uses the pesticides and fertilisers in it which make a loss of reputation being suffered
to Ross by analysing all the fundamental subject matter there can be seen that Chandler cheated
on Ross and also hampered his reputation so Ross is entitled for the breach of contract as
Chandler failed to complete the general terms in the contract.
This case scenario also focused on the employment law where it provides all die
legislation, rules and orders which are being made for the protection of the rights of employees.
As in this case Ross dismissed Monika by applying the ground of gross misconduct and has not
even served any notice. Basically, misconduct is defined in Morales Cottee v. Cooperative de
Ahorro y Credito Yabucoena it provides that misconduct is mainly failure to complete a duty
while doing the business or is also an improper or unlawful business activity which creates a
shock in any consigns (Taylor and Taylor, 2021). Gross misconduct generally is in capability of
completing any task in the job which is being framed by the set standards in behaviour, miss
conduct while performing any act or duty or the unwillingness for doing any important work or
job. It also involves to negligence in any of the serious issues and the performance of act. In this
case Ross faced major injuries due to the accident caused by Monika but their analyse that she
already administered that she was not that perfect in driving and she was feeling anxious but still
Ross forced her to drive for him due to intoxication so Monika cannot be held liable for any kind
of misconduct under the common law and in UK law. Rosh is also being entitled to provide and
seek all the remedies with the unjustified termination as no employees can be terminated from
the work without the notice being served. Monica can thereby being entitled to hold Ross
manage the responsibility for all such and justified dismissal laid out as it effected a reputation
and also her financial disbalance and she can thereby ask for the compensation and also for the
job back on that same organisation (Orwell, 2021). As unfair dismissal is generally an act made
by the employer for terminating any employee without providing any fair reason or notice. And
according to employment rights act 1996 there is been provided that no employees should be
terminated without a notice being served to them and also the actual cost for removal being given

to them. And in this case Monika was trying to manage her job in good faith and with honesty as
she was truthful towards the management and also the driving of car as instructed by the
employer. She also tried to manage all the activities in a proper manner and actions.
Employment act 1996 generally provides for protection to all the employees from all
such unfair dismissal as it covers the two types of dismissals on which the employees can go to
the employment tribunal and ask for the damages and compensation for the loss which is being
made to them. Initially is the wrongful dismissal in which no notice period is being served to the
employees and they were being terminated without giving the actual reason (Van Niekerk,
2019). The other one is unfair dismissal on which the employees being terminated without being
giving a fair reason even after working since years. As in this scenario there is being provided
that all the gross misconduct is a task which involves all the illegal activities and the contract in
which no terminating letters and the notice period is required to be served, Monica has been
doing her duty also reported and meet Rosh aware about not being well trained in her work were
still being forced to do and as Ross being the employer she was not being able to deny for the
duty. Other than this there also observed Gross misconduct thereby involve negligent act or
performance of act which can create any kind of misconduct and issues. But there seems an
accident which cannot be in admissible on account of Monika as she has taken proper care and
caution from her side to manage and maintain the proper driving. So according to this case in are
you the analysis is that Monika will not be liable to be in any kind of loss or the issues that are
being suffered by Ross due to the accident being caused and she should get her job back and can
also ask for compensation
In Johnson v. Unisus Limited in case where employees are being dismissed on the
wrong ground they can nearby ask for the compensation in damages and also for the re-in
statement of their position. As there is being seen and unjustified dismissal made to the employee
(Ioannou, and Dukes, 2021). So, it is been observed that through Ross dismissed Monica on
unfavourable grounds for termination. As he also abruptly affected her image as she was
terminated on the ground of gross misconduct which is majorly the illegal activity and can harm
the person’s image. The law of torts is referring to the other concerned law which has been used
to address the any kind of civil wrong that take place in against of a person or group of
individuals. Nervous shock refers to a principle that lies under the head of torts law in order to
claim the remedy from the party who conduct any such wrong. The nervous shock concept is

basically used to describes the results for the action of other persons. The Byrne v. Southern and
Western Railway Co. was the first case in which this concept was come in detailing. In the above
case, the court is decided that the claims are assigned according to the psychiatric damages.
According to this, it can be said that this concept is practicable for those cases where a person or
group of person faced psychiatric disorders while perceiving these incidents (Klee, 2018). The
reason behind of this law is that human action of the respective person or group were get vitiated
due to the chronic daze of psyche because nervous systems are disciplining. This makes
important to understand that bare screening is the reason behind the shock which cannot get the
assertion. This makes important for the person in order to claim the compensation establish all
the negligence elements of torts because they are the breach of said duty, the duty of care that
lies in between the breach, shock as well as shock is not overly remote (Merkin and Saintier,
2019).
Similarly, in the given case, the wife of Chandler named as Phoebe is subjected to the
mental shock because of the wrong action conducted by the Monica and she is entitled to claim
the damages because was not in the form of remote nature as well as the case makes the direct
link in between the breach as well as Chandler's wife was caused shock. After viewing the part of
Monica, duty of care is also lies towards the other individual while driving the car which also got
breached which results the damages in Chandler's wife along with their farm.
CONCLUSION
From the above-mentioned report, it has been concluded that the many legislations is lies
in the country that works in respect of each other in order to ensure justice was deliver properly
for the people within a society. The employment, contract, law of torts are different kinds of law
that are used to governed the several issues according the presented case study. The contract law
helps in viewing agreements that was created in between the concerned part in order top ensure
that all the important elements in between the contract has been performed properly. From the
aspect of first issue, it has been described that valid formation of contract is lies between the
parties as well as breach also. With the other concern, it has been concluded that there is no
misconduct lies form part of Monica, thus her termination is invalid. Further the last issue of
Phoebe, according the torts' law she is entitled for the claim for her damages due to the act
nervous action shock.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Ioannou, G. and Dukes, R., 2021. Anything goes? Exploring the limits of employment law in
UK hospitality and catering. Industrial Relations Journal.
Klee, L., 2018. International construction contract law. John Wiley & Sons.
Merkin, R. and Saintier, S., 2019. Poole's Textbook on Contract Law. Oxford University Press,
USA.
Orwell, G., 2021. Essential Student Texts: Animal Farm eBook. Oxford University Press-
Children.
Prewitt-White, T. and Fisher, L.A. eds., 2022. Examining and Mitigating Sexual Misconduct in
Sport. Routledge.
Rosher, P., 2018. The Notion of Wilful Misconduct and Its Impact on the Scope of Limitation of
Liability Clauses. Int'l Bus. LJ, p.529.
Smith, G.K. and Crofton, P.M., 2019. Toward an Understanding of Willful Misconduct in
International Construction Contracts. Constr. Law., 39, p.27.
Taylor, R. and Taylor, D., 2021. Contract Law Directions. oxford university press.
Tshibende, L.D.M., 2018. Contract law and smart contracts: property and security rights
issues. European Review of Private Law, 26(6).
Van Niekerk, B., 2019. Unravelling the Public Protector’s flawed logic. Without
Prejudice, 19(10), pp.35-38.