Contract Law and Duty of Care Case Study

This assignment provides an in-depth analysis of a contractual agreement between CP and DL, focusing on exclusion clauses and their operability under contractual agreements. The case study also delves into a breach of duty by a line manager towards a processor, resulting in damages for the injured party. A thorough examination of contract law principles is presented, including the establishment of duty, breach of duty, and compensation for damages.

Business law

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
QUESTION 1...................................................................................................................................1
QUESTION 2...................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
The business law for an organisation is the one that provides rules and regulations and
guideline to run and operate a business in the legal manner by complying with all the lawful
requirements. This includes the contract, company, consumers, tort, employment, health and
safety Act and regulations. A business is required to abide by all these legalities to avoid the
consequences that can be legal or related with operation of the company. The present report
includes detailed discussion of contract and consumer acts in context to case scenario of contract
between Chiclets Plc (CP) and Delta Delivery Ltd (DL). Furthermore, application of provision of
tort law is also discussed for the case of injury suffered by Joe and the DL.
QUESTION 1
Common law: The common law are considered on two ways which are the rule of incorporation
rule of constitution.
Incorporation:
The first question is that is the clue is a part of contract?
The incorporation clause under the business contract stated that where a party sing
agreements it is said to be contractual document. When the notice of terms and condition of the
document is given to the one party by other it also forms a condition of contractual agreement.
incorporated into a contract by a previous consistent course of dealing between the parties.
Where the parties are operating in the same sector on terms standard in the trade, few
interactions will be required.
Exclusion cause
An exclusion clause in a contractual agreement is a term which either limits the liability
or exclude the liability of a party for a breach of contract. The seeks to limit or exclude the
liability of one of the party to contract. Alternatively it also limits the range of the remedies
available and the time in which remedies can be claimed (Adams, 2010). The exclusion clauses
are the terms where buy one party seeks to reduce or limit the responsibilities under the contract.
These terms are also referred as the unfair contract terms which can be oppressive and the law
restricts the use of such term.
Construction of the contract:
Contract law:
1

Contract law is necessary for a business organisation to protect each and every legal
contract made in the entire life of the business. This means that with application of the contract
law every intercolonial agreements entered by the business gets legal status and a lawful binding
effect. The contract law makes the agreement enforceable and binds the parties to perform the
promise made under the agreement (Adams, 2010). This also gives the party to contract a power
to compensate and obtain money damages caused by the other party due to the breach of the
contract. The basic rule of the construction of contract in context of exclusion clause is the
expression of the contractual terms as expressed or implied.
Conclusion: this can stated the terms and condition of the agreement was sent to the CP
by DL and notice was made. Moreover, it was signed by CP and with seeing the course of
dealing it can be stated the exclusion clause is a part on contract terms and is incorporated in the
contract.
Statues law
Supply of goods and service Act, 1982
Section 13: Implied terms
This section provides that where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description,
there is an implied term that the goods will correspond with the description. This applies to
private sales and business to business contracts (Stone and Devenney, 2014). Terms implied
through statute are primarily for the purpose of consumer protection. Both conditions and
warranties may be implied. A condition is a major term of the contract and a warranty is a minor
term. For the present case it can be stated that the in the contract the CP have a implied contract
terms with its consumer to deliver the foods for which it entered in a contract with DL.
Does Unfair Contract term Act, 1977 Applies:
The protection from such offensive terms was established under the common law, Unfair
Contract Term Act, 1977 [UCTA], the Unfair terms in the consumers contract Regulation 1999
and the Consumer rights Act, 2015.
The protection from such exclusion clause that is unfair term comes in two forms, the court will
consider
 weather the term has been incorporated into the contractual, and
 Weather courts will consider that such clause covers the loss in question.
What is held as Incorporation of the term:
2

The general rule states that the terms incorporated in the contract as an exclusion clause
must be brought to the attention of the contracting parties before or at ant time the contract was
entered into. In case the term is not brought to the attention of other party it can not be stated to
be accepted by the other party to the contract. Hence, the term can be said to be a part of the
contract. For the instances where the contract is written one and signed by both the parties, a
party is bound by all the terms in the contract irrespective of weather or not they were aware of
the terms contained in the contractual agreement (Stone and Devenney, 2014). If the terms is
misrepresented by the other party the clause is not effective this need the in case of
misrepresentation the innocents party can seek a remedy irrespective of the fact that it has signed
the contract.
Who is liable to prove reasonableness of the contract terms?
Section 11 of UCTA: defines the teat as to whether the term in the contract is fair and
reasonable. And of the way to include it in the contract is to being all the terms in the light at the
time of contracting. Moreover, the burden of proving this reasonableness lies on the party who
attempt to use the clause. The court sees the following when seeking the reasonableness of a
contractual term:
 the equality of the bargain position,
 is the clause is commercial practicable in the industry,
 does the clause allocate the risk between the parties appropriately
If the terms are found to be unfair and unreasonable the exclusion clause in the question
will not be enforceable by the court.
What is effects the terms and UCTA on the contract?
For the given case scenario it can be stated that the term entered by DL in the contract as
'DL will not be liable for non delivery howsoever caused.' To determined the reasonableness of
this term is application of the above mentioned test defined under section 11 of UCTA which
states the fact that this terms do not give both the parties equal right to bargain over the terms as
is DL have taken an absolute position over the term as it will not be responsible for non
deliveries of the parcels which is the main work of the DL (Adams, 2010). This terms do not let
CP to bargains and negotiate over the non deliveries for 10 days to power breakdown in DL.
Moreover, this clause is a commercial practicable as party's do intent to excludes and limit their
liabilities under the commercial contracts to reduce the risk of compensation. But for the third
3

condition it can be interpreted that this clause do not allocate the risk equally to both the parties
whole of the risk is impaired to CP as for the non deliveries it can not claim the damage
compensation as DL have excused itself form all the liabilities. Hence, all the risk is allocated to
single party that is CP who has already suffered major losses due to no delivery of good for 10
days. This can be stated that the term as per the UCTA is unfair and unreasonable. This is
interpreted because the term exclude the DL from all the risks and liabilities for non delivers and
the main term on the contract is to deliver the food to consumers. The CP can a legal action and
file an application in the court to demand the damages suffered by it due to the action of DL by
proving the fact that the exclusion clause in the contract was unfair and unreasonable to the
nature and main activity of the contract that is delivering meals to the consumers.
QUESTION 2
What constitute the Tort of negligence?
The Tort law serves purpose of resorting someone who have suffered injuries due to the
wrong doing or negligence of other. The person who have been injured is awarded monetary
compensation for the damages which will pay for the medical expenses, loss of wages and
compensation for physical and metal pain suffered due to the injuries (Adams, 2010). This hold a
vital importance in the businesses as this aim to provide s system that holds people accountable
for their wrong actions which have caused damages to other while they were discouraging
others from doing the same things.
What are three main elements under the tort law and is they applicable to the given
scenario
Duty of care: is referred as the legal duty of care a person owes to other which is
recognised by the law under given circumstances and relationships. The care of duty is
established thorough the neighbouring test which states that there must be a reasonable care must
be taken by a person to avoid the act or omission which a individual can foresee and the same is
likely to cause injury to the another person who is closely and directly effected by the act of
former prosper (Adams, 2010). To put forwards the reasonability of the loss and its forseeability
must be proved that, there existed a duty of care and a relationship of proximity.
Donoghie & stevanzan 1932:
This was the case where first the duty of care was set on the manufactures for its
consumers, in this case the consumers consumed the drink manufactured by the company which
4

contained a decomposed snail in it. It made her sick and she served a severe trauma due to this. It
was held in this case that organisation owes duty of care towards it consumer.
Conclusion: it can be states as the line mangers have an employer employee relation
with Joe and he owes a care of duty towards him to take care of him form any reasonable risk
under the employment.
Breach of duty: A person failing to take such care can result in him/her being held
accountable for breach of such duty and be liable to pay damages to the innocent party who have
suffered injuries. The breach of the duty in the negligence it established when the defendant fails
to meet the standard care that is required to be taken under the law. With conformation of the
fact that duty of care was owed by the defendant claimant have a duty to prove that there was a
breach of duty. This is established with the objective test which state that the relationship
between the defended and the claimant is seen under the given the circumstances of specific
defendant.
Damages: once it is established that defendant owed a care of duty and that there was
breach of the same which has caused damages. It must be demonstrated that damages was not
too remote and can be compensate in the monetary term.
What is the conclusion for the given case?
For the present case scenario it can be stated that here was a proximity relation between
the line manager and the processor and that the former one owed a duty of care towards Joe. The
damages were foreseeable as there were strict instruction take the load by machinery and not
manually. The line manager owed a care of duty still he forces Joe to perform the work
personally which lead him to suffer serious injuries in the back (Adams, 2010). This means that
the line manager owed a duty of care to Joe and the breach the same by neglecting the fact that it
can injure the processed and the same happens and the fact was foreseeable that if a person does
the work of machinery there are chances that person will get injured. Hence, Joe is eligible to get
compensation for the damages suffered buy him as the medical expenses for the treatment, the
mental and physical pain due to the injury. The DL held the line manager liable for his act m as
he was the one who breached the duty of care and make him pay all the compensation off the
damages to the Joe.
5

CONCLUSION
To conclude it can be stated that the clause entered by the DL in it agreement with CP
falls under the exclusion clauses and for the present case it has been identified as unlawful for
CP. This is stated after evaluation of the contract terms with of making an exclusion clause
binding and operable under a contractual agreement. Moreover, for the case of Joe it has been
articulated that the line manager and DL owed a care of duty to Joe and there was a breach of the
same, hence Joe is liable to remedial compensation for the same.
6

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Adams, A., 2010. Law for business students. Pearson Longman.
Stone, R. and Devenney, J., 2014. Text, cases and materials on contract law. Routledge.
7