Understanding Business Law: Tort, Contract, and Voidable Agreements

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

BUSINESS LAW1
Question 1
The law of tort is considered to be a civil wrong which would refer to the violation of a
certain duty that has been set by the law. If there has been any breach of duty the party is
considered to have the right to institute or sue the other party for damages as compensation. This
particular law relates to negligence or nuisance and it can also relate to trespass to any individual
or land and their goods. It also includes defamation. In Malaysia the tort law is considered to
cover the civil wrongs such as negligence, nuisance, defamation, trespass to the land or the
property or the goods along with the trespass to the individuals. If any individual suffers due to
any kind of tortuous act through some other individual then as a relief the injured party would be
able to sue the party who has caused harm as such has been provided by the law.
Negligence is a kind of failure to exercise various suitable and moral ruled care under
exercised circumstances. It is a form of carelessness, which causes potential harm or injury to an
individual. Professional negligence is considered to be the breach of the duty of care which exist
between the professionals with their clients. This particular duty of care is an arrangement in
common law where the client is considered to expect a certain degree of professionalism by the
professionals in the course of their duty. The legal basis for a third party claim relies on the
circumstances of the case where the third party has suffered a certain kind of loss and therefore
has a contractual claim for the compensation. Furthermore, the claim for compensation by a third
party arises due to any actionable duty of care which has been owed by all the professionals in
negligence (Manap, 2019).
There are certain elements of negligence, which needs to be established in the court of
law in order to comply with the claim of negligence. The defendant is considered to have a

BUSINESS LAW2
certain duty to the others, which would also include the duty towards the plaintiff. A as a doctor
has a duty of care towards B who is his patient. The defendant needs to act with reasonable care.
Furthermore, it needs to be established that there had been a breach of such duty through a
certain act or through culpable omission. If A behaves in a negligent way towards B by not
carrying out the proper treatment then such would constitute as a breach. Moreover, as a result of
certain act or omission the plaintiff needs to suffer an injury or any damages. Due to proper
treatment not being carried out B had an infected leg and such had to be amputated. Lastly, the
injury that has been caused to the plaintiff needs to be a probable consequence for the
respondent’s act or any omission. Therefore A, needs to pay for compensation to B for the
damages of his negligence. The legal liability of the defendant to that of the plaintiff is
considered to be the failure of the defendant to fulfill a certain responsibility which has been
recognized and identified by law. The beneficiary of such is intended to be the plaintiff. It can be
understood from the groundbreaking case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 where
the modern law for negligence had been established by laying the foundation for duty of care
along with the fault principle, which have been adopted through the Commonwealth. This
particular case dealt with the breach of duty. Similarly, in the case of Home Office v Dorset
Yacht Co Ltd [1970] UKHL 2 that stated that all the members had a duty to provide with certain
degree of care to the plaintiff and other individuals along with their property. Therefore, it can be
said that the claims concerning negligence in tort needs to prove the elements of negligence if an
individual had committed an act carelessly in order to cause some kind of injury to another
individual under the legal principle concerning negligence as such an act caused or resulted in
harm and therefore, such person would be legally liable. In case of professional negligence, a
professional has a certain duty of care and the plaintiff needs to prove that such a duty has been

BUSINESS LAW3
breached by the defendant. It can be observed from the case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller
& Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 where the court held that there was a duty of care towards the
plaintiff but no damages had been ordered. The professionals owe a certain duty of care towards
their client as well as their staff. They owe a duty of care towards everyone they work with or are
associated with. It can be observed from the case of Thake v Maurice [1986] QB 644. The duty
of care is applicable at all times.
Conclusion
Therefore, the professional negligence would help in determining the duty of care and
whether the respondent has breached such duty.
Question 2
A contract is an agreement, which is legally binding and are governed by the Contract
Act of 1950. There are six essential elements that needs to be fulfilled in order to create a valid
contract. Primarily, there needs to be a proposal or an offer made and such needs to be accepted
by the parties. There needs to be a consideration between the parties and the parties need to have
the intention to create some kind of a legal relation. The parties entering into a contract needs to
have capability or capacity to enter into a contract and provide with a consent, which would be
free and not forceful in order to constitute a valid contract. Such can be understood from the case
of Travelsight (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v Atlas Corp SDN BHD [2003] 6 MLJ 658.
The terms in a contract are considered to be provided or classified into condition and
warranty. A condition is considered to be a foremost part of a contract as it is a requirement or
specification and an essence of any contractual agreement. If any term which forms a primary
part of contract is violated or breached the party, which is innocent, can disclaim or repudiate or