logo

Business Law Assignment : Emma

   

Added on  2021-04-21

7 Pages1297 Words29 Views
Running head: BUSINESS LAWBUSINESS LAWName of the Student:Name of the University:Author Note

1BUSINESS LAWScenario oneIssue The first issue that has been identified in the given scenario is whether Richard has anycontractual claim against EmmaRule It has been held in the case Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465 by the house of Lords that aclaim to recover damages could be made by the aggrieved party in a contract is valid if it isproved that the other party had been negligent in in providing a statement and when suchmisstatement has caused the financial loss of the aggrieved party. It can be said in accordancewith the decision of the case Williams v Natural Life Health Foods [1998] UKHL 17, the duty ofthe person making the misrepresentation will arise when the misrepresentor has some specialknowledge or skill and such representor believes that the representee will rely on therepresentation made by him. Section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 states further that itis the duty of the representor to prove that the misrepresentation had not been done fraudulentlyand that such representor had reasonable ground to believe that what he represented was true.ApplicationIn this scenario it can be sated that Richard had approached ‘Shocks are us’ to purchase shockabsorbers. He had been informed that shockers D200 would function efficiently on roughground. However it was later revealed by Emma that she had wrongly given that information asshe ad referred to the wrong page of the brochure. Richard’s Jeep sustained damages of 2000

2BUSINESS LAWdollars for the same. Thus Richard can claim damages from Emma according to the principle ofthe case Williams v Natural Life Health Foods (1998). ConclusionEmma, an agent of ‘Shocks For Us’ had committed negligent misrepresentation and thus Richardcan claim damagesScenario twoIssueIssue that has been identified in this scenario is whether Richard has any contractual claimagainst GeorgeRuleA mere agreement of promise does not constitute a valid contract. For a contract to be legallybinding upon the parties both the parties must provide compensation. The definition ofconsideration has been provided in the case Currie v Misa [1875] LR 10 Exch 153. The CaseFerguson v Davies [1996] had applied the legal principle of the Piennel’s case. It had been heldthat part payments do not make good consideration. In the case Foakes v Beer [1884] 9 App Cas605 it had been held that the claimant was entitled to receive interest that had been accrued.However the principle of promissory estoppel is an exception to the aforementioned rule. Theconcept of promissory estoppel had been illustrated in the case Total Metal Manufacturing LtdV. Tungsten Electric Co Ltd. [1955] 1 WLR 761.

End of preview

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

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

Business and Corporation Law: Assignment
|7
|1337
|35

Negligent Misstatement Assignment
|6
|1042
|129

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

Business Law Assignment Sample PDF
|6
|1360
|163

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