logo

Business Law Assignment Sample PDF

   

Added on  2021-04-24

6 Pages1360 Words163 Views
Running head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT0Business Law Assignment
Business Law Assignment Sample PDF_1
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT1Question 1IssueThe main issue in the case is whether Richard can file a suit against Emma forproviding him wrong information which resulted in causing him monetary damages.LawThe tort law in Australia provides provision regarding the doctrine of negligentmisrepresentation. In this doctrine, a party can be held liable for paying damages if the partyhas made a statement without having reasonable ground to believe in its truth which resultedin causing monetary damages to another party.ApplicationIn this situation, Emma is liable for paying damages to Richard because of thedoctrine of negligent misstatement. Emma is the store managers, and she must ensure that theinformation that she provides to customers is correct so that they did not face any losses. InHoward Marine and Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (1978) QB 574 case, plaintiff’smanager represented to the defendant that ships or barges can load up to 1,600 tons whereasGerman shipping documents showed correctly that their capability is 1,055 tons. Thedefendant rejected to pay the additional charges of the barges. The plaintiff sued thedefendant for breaching the terms of their contract and not paying the balance amount. Thedefendant counterclaimed in the court against the plaintiff for damages because ofmisrepresentation of the facts. The court held that plaintiff is liable as per negligentmisrepresentation since he was under obligation to provide a correct statement to thedefendant (Hough & Kuhnel-Fitchen, 2014, pp. 117-142).ConclusionTo conclude, Richard has the right to file a suit against Emma for reimbursement ofdamages because she is liable as per the doctrine of negligent misrepresentation for provingwrong information to Richard.
Business Law Assignment Sample PDF_2
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT2Question 2IssueThe main issue is in this situation is whether George can enforce Richard for payingextra $3,000 as rent based on the terms of their lease even after saying that he did not have topay such amount for 2016.LawThe doctrine of promissory estoppel provides that if a party changes his/her positionin a contract substantially based on a gratuitous promise than another party can enforce suchpromise even when it did not fulfil essential elements of the contract (Gan, 2015).ApplicationA subcontract had established between George and Richard even when it did notinclude essential elements of a contract. George said to Richard that he did not have to payadditional rent for this year; this promise binds George in a subcontract, and Richard canenforce him to comply with his promise. In Central London Property Trust Ltd v High TreesLtd (1947) KB 130 case, Denning J established the doctrine of promissory estoppel in theobiter statement (Graw, 2012). In Woodhouse A.C. Israel Cocoa Ltd v Nigerian ProductMarketing Co Ltd (1972) AC 741 case, the court provided that in order to implement theprinciple of promissory estoppel, the promise must be clear and unambiguous (Giancaspro,2013, pp. 12-32).ConclusionTo conclude, George has made a clear and unambiguous promise to Richard that hedid not have to pay additional $3,000 as rent for 2016. Now, he cannot back out from hispromise, and he cannot enforce Richard are per the terms of the lease to pay additional rentamount.
Business Law Assignment Sample PDF_3

End of preview

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

Related Documents
(PDF) Business Law Assignment : Heller & Partners Ltd
|6
|1029
|76

(Solved) Assignment on Business Law (pdf)
|6
|1417
|114

(Sample) Assignment on Business Law
|7
|1240
|44

(Solution) Contract Law : Assignment
|7
|1263
|90

Contract Law Assignment Sample PDF
|7
|1433
|107

Negligent Misstatement Assignment
|6
|1042
|129