Business Law Assignment

Running head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT1
Answer 6:
As per the civil liability legislation, breach of duty of care is generally determined by
applying the objective test in which the defendant is generally expected to fulfill the standard
that is possessed by a reasonable man while practicing his duty towards other person to whom he
owes a duty to take care. Objective test is not definite but varies with the circumstances of each
of the case. While deciding the case, the court takes into account four factors mainly to apply the
objective test. They are as follows: 1) Likelihood of injury or harm caused: the defendant
cannot be expected to protect the victim against any unforeseeable event as entrenched in the
decision of Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 WLR 915 case.
2) Seriousness or gravity of the harm caused: As seen in the case of Paris v Stepney [1951]
AC 367 House of Lords, when the risk is of serious nature, the standard of care must be greater
because of the foreseeable risk.
3) Cost incurred to prevent the injury or damage: the court will also consider the preventing
cost when taking into account the standard of care. Less the preventing cost, more reasonable for
the accused it will be to take preventing cost and vice versa as observed in Latimer v AEC Ltd
[1953] AC 643.
4) Usefulness of the conduct of the accused: The courts will be applying less care to activities
that are valuable socially and vice versa. It can be understood by referring to the case of Watt v
Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 1 WLR 835.
The standard of care plays a crucial role in determining the duty breach and it will be on
the basis of reasonable foreseeability. This indicates that it will not be asked by the court whether

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT2
the defendants foresaw the affect but instead it will be sought by it to work on what ought to
have been foreseen by the defendant.
Answer 7:
In order to claim damages from the defendant, the victim must prove that in addition to a
duty and its breach, the defendant’s act has caused loss or injury to him. The employed to
determine the causation is called the ‘but for’ test. If the accident will hot have occurred but for
the act of the accused, there lies causation as seen in Chester v Afshar [2004] 3 WLR 927. If the
accident would have occurred in the event, there lies no causation.
When multiple factors results into an accident, then the ‘but for’ test is modified to some
extent. When negligence of a person substantially contributes to any event of accident, it also
amounts to the cause of the accident as observed in McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1
WLR 1 case. Hence, it is thus possible to be a reason behind the accident by acting together with
others or failing to stop it.
Answer 9:
A proposal can be treated as an offer or in the other way as an invitation to offer
depending on the facts or terms of the case. An offer can be said to be a proposal made to initiate
a contract and on the other hand, an invitation to offer is made usually with an objective to
negotiate or include any terms of the contract. Usually, when a person expresses his will or
intention to another person or persons specifically to do or abstain to do something by accepting
his offer as seen in Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954] HCA 20,
(1954) 92 CLR 424, High Court, it is known as offer, whereas, when a person requests others in