Business law - Solved Assignment PDF
Added on 2021-05-31
12 Pages2361 Words57 Views
Running Head: BUSINESS LAWBUSINESS LAWName of the Student:Name of the University:Author Note
1BUSINESS LAWAnswer 1Scenario AIssue Whether Amelia is liable for the financial loss which has been incurred by MariaRule In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562 it has been stated by the court that a conceptknown as duty of care imposes an obligation on a person to safeguard the right of another personwho may be injured or harmed by the actions of such person. This means that the duty of care ispresent in relation to any person who can reasonable foresee damages or injury being caused toanother person due to actions of such person. The claimant under the law of negligence has toestablish that the other person owed them a duty of care, the duty was contravened, thecontravention caused damages and the injury was not “too” remote. In the case of Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller [1963] 3 WLR 101 it had been ruled by the court thatwhere an economic loss gas been caused to a person due to a negligent misstatement rather thana negligent act the person who has made such statement may be liable for negligence.The contravention of the duty owed by the defendant is analyzed based in an objective test as perthe ratio decidendi of the case of Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467. The teststipulates the application of a prudent person towards making a comparison between his actionsand the actions of the defendant. If the defendant took the same level of care as the prudentperson he has not contravened the duty. On the other hand when it is a professional in contexts
2BUSINESS LAWhis actions are analyzed by the standards of a professional as per the ratio decidendi of SouthAustralia Asset Management Corp v York Montague [1996] 3 WLR 87The damages caused in relation to the contravention of the duty are assessed by applying “butfor” test as per the obiter dicta of the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1QB 428. Only and only if the damages results out of the contravention a claim for negligencewill be successful. Application It has been provided through the scenario that Amelia is a professional tax advisor. She hasprovided an advice to Maria as per which Maria had to obtain additional loan to expand herbusiness. However it has been provided where Maria acted upon the advice of Amelia she hasbeen subjected to losses. This is because Amelia had not taken into consideration Maria’sprevious debts and had provided the advice based on fortune cards. In the given situation byapplying the Hedley Byrne & Co test it can be stated that Amelia had a duty of care to Maria asshe can foreseeable suffer losses because of Amelia’s actions. by applying the case of SouthAustralia Asset Management Corp v York Montague it can be stated that she has not acted with aprofessional standard as she did not taken into consideration Maria’s previous debts and hadprovided the advice based on fortune cards. The loss would not have been caused to Maria ifAmelia did not provided the wrong idea to expand the business as per the “but for test”. Thedamages incurred by Maria are not too remote. Thus Maria can sue Amelia for negligence. Conclusion Maria can sue Amelia for making a negligent misstatement
3BUSINESS LAWScenario BIssue Whether Whether Nathaniel would be able to make a claim against Dan Brownie and Julia for the injurycaused to him or not In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562 it was also provided that it is the liability ofthe manufacturer in case any person has incurred an injury by using the manufactured goods. The duty of care is present in relation to the wrongdoer can be identified by applying the“Caparo test” as brought into existence by the case of Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2AC 605 House of Lords. The test analyzes the proximity between the plaintiff and the defendantto identify the existence of the duty of care. The contravention of the duty owed by the defendant is analyzed based in an objective test as perthe ratio decidendi of the case of Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467. The teststipulates the application of a prudent person towards making a comparison between his actionsand the actions of the defendant. If the defendant took the same level of care as the prudentperson he has not contravened the duty.The damages caused in relation to the contravention of the duty are assessed by applying “butfor” test as per the obiter dicta of the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1QB 428. Only and only if the damages results out of the contravention a claim for negligencewill be successful.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Business Law: Negligence, Contract and Promissory Estoppellg...
|12
|2391
|353
Business law - Sample Assignment PDFlg...
|12
|2315
|77
(Doc) Commercial Law : Assignmentlg...
|8
|1387
|36
Business Law Assignmentlg...
|14
|4520
|85
NEGLIGENCE 7 Business Law Assignment Case Study 21-Aug-17lg...
|7
|1478
|124
Assignment on Commercial Lawslg...
|6
|1395
|79