Business Law Assignment

This Business Law Assignment covers topics such as duty of care, vicarious liability, enforceable contracts, breach of contract, and legal consequences of breach. It includes relevant case laws and their application to the given scenarios.

Business Law Assignment
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Author Name(s)
Class
Professor
School
The Date

Business Law Assignment 1
QUESTION 1
Section A
ISSUE:
Does Rupali have a duty of care? Has this duty been breached?
LAW:
The tort of negligence grants the claimants a right to seek the suffered damages from the
defendant due to him/her failing to undertake reasonable care in regard when dealing with the
claimant or his/her property. The court expects the claimant to demonstrate that someone under
the same circumstances that the defendant was could have acted differently to prevent the
injuries or damages. These principles were developed from the case of (Donoghue v Stevenson,
[1932]) which created the neighbor principles. A duty of care would be owed by the defendant
if;
(i) There is a proximity between the claimant and defendant as held in (Bourhill v
Young, [1943]). It is reasonably foreseeable that someone under the same
circumstances could have acted differently as in (Chapman v Hearse, [1961]).
(ii) The salient features of the case show that the defendant owed a duty to care as in
(Sullivan v Moody, [2001]).
(iii) A breach of duty involves failing to do what a reasonable person in the
defendant’s position should have done.
One a duty has been established, the claimant must demonstrate that the owed duty was
breached by showing that the defendant failed to provide the reasonable standard of care in
preventing a foreseeable harm. In (Phillips v Delay, [1988]), the claim failed since it was not
reasonable that the defendant breached his duty.

Business Law Assignment 2
APPLICATION:
By analyzing the facts, Rupali was preparing meals for the guests. Therefore, he was
aware that the guests were to eat his meal. This means that a duty of care was expected from
Rupali as established through the test of proximity, resilient features test, and it was also
reasonably foreseeable that chefs owe a duty of care to the people who take their meals. For
instance, in (Chapman v Hearse, [1961]), it was stated that drivers owe a duty of care to any
person who can come rescue people injured in an accident. One a duty has been established, the
claimant must demonstrate that the owed duty was breached by showing that the defendant failed
to provide the reasonable standard of care in preventing a foreseeable harm. In (Woods v Multi-
Sport Holdings Pty Ltd, [2002]), the court found that no breach since it was not reasonable for
the claimant to suffer in daylight. However, in Rupali, it is reasonable that someone would be
injured by thorns in unpeeled fruits.
CONCLUSION
Rupali breached the standard duty of a chef to provide safe meals.
Section B
ISSUE:
Is an unqualified or inexperienced chef being relieved from the standard of care required
on account that he/she lacks the required experience or qualification?
LAW:
As a general rule, whether someone is experienced or not, the court in (Imbree v
McNeilly, [2008]) settled that the standard of care owed that an inexperienced person owes is the
same that experience people owe which is to take reasonable measure to avoid harming others.
.

Business Law Assignment 3
APPLICATION:
On analysis, Rupali was an inexperienced chef. However, the law in (Imbree v McNeilly,
[2008]) provides that he owed the same reasonable duty of care as the experienced chefs.
CONCLUSION:
Being inexperienced did not make Rupali owe a lower standard of care.
Section C
ISSUE:
Whether employers can be held liable for the misconducts of their workers.
LAW:
Even defendants are liable of their own torts, vicarious liabilities are some of the
exceptional situations where someone would be sued for torts committed by others. Claims of
vicarious liabilities are commonly made on employers on the fact that they control the behaviors
of their employees. For instance, in (Century Insurance v NI Road Transport Board, [1942]), the
employer was liable for the fire caused by the driver (employee).
APPLICATION:
Since Johnny has employed Rupali, Johnny can be vicariously liable for the torts
committed by Rupali as he was controlling the behaviors of Rupali. In (Century Insurance v NI
Road Transport Board, [1942]) the employer was liable of the fire caused by the employer when
he lit a cigarette near petrol tankers.
CONCLUSION:
Johnny controlled Rupali’s actions as an employer. He was thus vicariously liable of
Rupali’s tort.

Business Law Assignment 4
QUESTION 2:
Section A
ISSUE:
Does a contract exist between Li and Lame Duck Restaurant?
LAW:
The essentials of an enforceable contract an offer, its acceptance, consideration and
party’s intention to forming legal relations. An offer should be defined in a clear language
and communicated to the offeree. Acceptance is limited to only those people the offer has
been made to, and it should be communicated to the offeror found in (Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke Ball Company, [1892]).
Consideration is any price that each party pays in exchange for the other’s
performance. In (Thomas v Thomas, [1842]), the court set that sufficient consideration can be
anything as far as accepts it. The third requirement of a contract is an intention to be legally
bound. In (Balfour v. Balfour, [1982]), the restated that agreements originating from social or
domestic setting are presumed to be made without the intention to make them legal unless
proven otherwise. In (Rose and Frank Co v JR Crompton and Bros Ltd, [1925]) court also
mentioned that the there is always a presumption that agreement from commercial settings
are made with the intention to make them binding unless this intention is refuted.
APPLICATION:
While applying these rules, Lame Duck sent the price quote to Li, it fulfilled the
requirements of an offer (be made, and communicated to the offeree). When Li accepted the
price quotes, paid the deposit and chose a date, she fulfilled the requirement of an acceptance
as mentioned in (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, [1892]). Like as stated in Thomas

Business Law Assignment 5
v Thomas, consideration can be anything as far as the other party accepts. In this case, Lame
Duck was getting the quoted price, and Li was getting the premises. This was enough
consideration. Whether there was an intention to be legally bound is a matter of
differentiation between a commercial and a domestic setting (Rose and Frank Co v JR
Crompton and Bros Ltd, [1925]). And as it can be seen, this was a commercial setting, so
there was full intention to be legally bound.
CONCLUSION:
There was an enforceable contract between the Lame Duck Restaurant and Li.
Part B
ISSUE:
Mistakes on one side of the contract (from one party).
RULE:
Despite being common for a party to be misapprehended when entering into a
contract, rarely will such issues make the contract void. An operative misapprehension in
unilateral contracts will only happen if it strikes to the root of a contract. Examples of these
mistakes are; A mistake to identity if parties were not contracting face to face as in (Cundy v
Lindsey, [1878]). A mistake to fundamental term where one party intends to take advantage
as found in (Taylor v Johnson, [1983]). However, a mistake to the quality of the negotiated
instrument cannot make the contract void.
APPLICATION
Applying these rules. The mistake was unilateral as it was made by one party.
Whether the mistake as operative involves looking for the facts that make the mistake in
unilateral contracts operative. These are a mistake to identity and where one party wish to

Business Law Assignment 6
take advantage. In this case, there was no mistake to identity as both parties wanted to
transact as they are. There is no evidence that Li wants to take advantage of the mistake for
her own gain. For example, In(Taylor v Johnson, [1983]), Johnson wanted to take advantage
of the mistake in quotation where price a price of $15000 was give for all 10 acres instead of
one acre.
CONCLUSION:
There was a unilateral mistake but it was not operative.
Part C
ISSUE:
Legal consequences if the Lame Duck Restaurant breaches the contract with Li.
RULE:
The general rule requires a contract to be discharged through a complete performance
where all obligations are carried out as agreed. A failure to provide performance make the
party vulnerable to the other’s action for the breach of contract. A breach of warranty would
cause the innocent party to claim any actionable damages but would not end the contract. A
breach of a contract would require the innocent party to repudiate the contract and claim for
damages as in (Koufos v C Czarnikow ltd; The Heron II, [1969]). An anticipatory breach
occurs when one party, prior to the performance, indicates that it intends to repudiate the
contract. The breach requires the innocent party to terminate the contract and claim for
damages as in (Gold Coast oil Co Pty Ltd v Lee Properties Pty Ltd, [1985]). In any breach of
the contract, the court allows the innocent party to claim for damages that result directly from
the breach. In most cases, the damages awarded are in monetary form. However, the court
may award an equitable remedy where the court finds that it is the only way to provide

Business Law Assignment 7
justice to both of the contracting parties. Specific performance is an equitable remedy given
only where time is of the essence to performance, performance requires limited supervision,
and monetary damages are not an adequate remedy.
APPLICATION:
On application, Lame Duck’s failure to provide the premises will make Li claim for
damages like in the case of (Koufos v C Czarnikow ltd; The Heron II, [1969]). As Lame
Duck breach would happen one day before the date of the wedding, time would be of essence
to this contract, and rewarding Li with monetary damages would not be helpful to her. In this
case, Li would seek specific performance to compel Lame Duck to provide the premise. For
instance, in (Rainbow Estates Ltd v Tokenhold, [1988]), the court awarded specific
performance compel the tenant to make the repairs.
CONCLUSION:
Lame duck would be in breach. The court may grant Li specific performance ordering
Lame Duck to undertake its obligations.

Business Law Assignment 8
Bibliography
Balfour v. Balfour [1982] So. 2d 413.
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1.
Century Insurance v NI Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509.
Chapman v Hearse [1961] 106 CLR 112.
Cundy v Lindsey [1878] App Cas 459 3.
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100.
Gold Coast oil Co Pty Ltd v Lee Properties Pty Ltd [1985] Qd R 416 1.
Imbree v McNeilly [2008] HCA 40.
Koufos v C Czarnikow ltd; The Heron II [1969] AC 530 1.
Phillips v Delay [1988] NSWLR 65 15.
Rainbow Estates Ltd v Tokenhold [1988] 2 All ER 880.
Rose and Frank Co v JR Crompton and Bros Ltd [1925] AC 445.
Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59.
Taylor v Johnson [1983] 151 CLR 422.
Thomas v Thomas [1842] 2 QB 851; 114 ER 330.
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 9.