Business Law Assignment docx.

0
Running head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author’s note:

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT1
Question 1
Part 1
Issue
Issues have involve in the given scenario, whether Manuel has possessed any right
towards Loren, financial advisor and any liabilities against Ripoff Credit.
Law
Rules relating to the liability of financial advisor and breach of contract will be
applicabl0 of the here to resolve such issues mentioned above. Section 20 of the Civil Liability
Act 2003 deals with the definition of professional. This means any professional should be a
person who has been practising in his field. The duties of care of a professional have described in
section 22 of the Act. He should not breach his duty of profession, which arises from his service
of the profession. Section 15 (2) describes that the professional should inform his client that risk
of financial loss may arise if he (client) follows such advice of him. If any party to a contract
does not fulfil any contractual relationship, then there will be arisen a breach of contract. In the
case of Tramways Advertising Pty. Ltd vs Luna Park Ltd 1938, it demonstrates that breach of
any contract can be arisen from not fulfilling any material fact.
Application
In the given scenario, Manuel has tried to expand his business on the advice of the
financial advisor Loren. He has taken a loan for $2,500,000 from a union named Ripoff Credit.
Manuel has suffered a great loss and unable to pay the loan amount.
Applying section 22 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 in this scenario, Loren has a
professional duty towards Manuel as Manuel has appointed her as a financial advisor.

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT2
Applying Section 15(2) of the Act, Manuel has followed Loren’s advice and taken a loan
form a union to start the business. He has started so but has failed due to some reasons, which
Loren should inform him. Therefore, Manuel has a right to get compensation from Loren.
Applying the case of Tramways Advertising Pty. Ltd vs Luna Park Ltd 1938 in this
scenario, Manuel should have to repay the loan amount to Ripoff Credit; otherwise, there may
arise a breach of contract. Therefore, Manuel is liable to pay the loan amount.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded in this scenario that Manuel has a right to claim
compensation from Loren and the liabilities arise towards Ripoff Credit to repay the loan
amount.
Part 2
Issue
The issue involved in this scenario whether Bob is liable for physical injury of Roger.
Law
Law relating to negligence will be applied here to decide Bob’s liability. There are four
elements to establish a negligent act of the wrongdoer. A duty of care of the defendant should
arise towards the plaintiff. The defendant should violate such duty, and the plaintiff has suffered
an injury for such violation. The plaintiff has to prove a proximate relation between the injury
and such duty. In the case of Donoghue vs Stevenson 1932 has discussed that the plaintiff
should prove those four elements to claim damages for the negligent act of the plaintiff. In the
case of Pennington vs Norris 1956, the court has said that the defendant can take a defense of
contributory negligence to avoid such liability, that is, there is a wrong on behalf of the plaintiff

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT3
for such incident. Section 5 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 has describes that the plaintiff of any
incident will not be entitled to claim damages if there is any contributory negligence.
Application
In the given scenario, Bob has injured Roger by a car accident. Roger and her friend ride
their bikes on the freeway not in the cycleway without the red rear reflector of the bikes.
Applying the case of Donoghue vs Stevenson 1932 in this scenario, Bob has a duty
towards the other cars not to make any accident. Roger is injured for such an accident. Therefore,
there is a liability arising out of the negligent activity of Bob, and he will be liable for such an
incident.
Applying the case of Pennington vs Norris 1956 in this scenario, Roger and her friend
has made contributory negligence for such incident as they have ridden their bike on the wrong
root and without such red read headlights on their bike. Therefore, Bob can take a defense of
such contributory negligence to avoid liability towards them.
Applying Section 5 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 here, Bob is not entitled to provide
any compensation to Rodger.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded in this given scenario that Bob will not be liable for such
incident as there is contributory negligence from Rodger.