Ask a question from expert

Ask now

Business Law - Joystick Company

9 Pages2220 Words249 Views
   

Added on  2019-10-30

About This Document

Working in accordance with the laws plays a significant role in the growth and development of the companies. The essay presents the analysis of issues, negligence, and misrepresentations with tort law. In the essay, an explanation has been made of the legal components of the torts of misrepresentation and negligence and what steps are needed to prove for showing that either of the things has occurred. Apart from this, the essay has presented different torts that can be applied in the business situation like considerations to be made in terms of care and maintenance expected with the premises of the retailer. The essay also presents the steps and care which should be considered while giving directions or advice to the customers. Consequences which can be faced by the companies when a disgruntled client faces any loss and options available to the company when the client claims to be being injured.

Business Law - Joystick Company

   Added on 2019-10-30

BookmarkShareRelated Documents
Running head: BUSINESS LAWBusiness LawName of the studentName of the UniversityAuthor note
Business Law - Joystick Company_1
1BUSINESS LAWA civil wrong that is perpetrated by an individual against that of another person can betermed as a tort. This term has come into force with the help of common law and there is nospecific statute that provides the definition for the term. The tort law of United Kingdominfluences to a large extent the tort law of Australia on account of the colonial heritage in regardto Australia. The statute of Civil Liability Acts have brought about modification in Tort Law in alarge number of Australian cities. Common torts that are prevalent in the Australian Law are inrelation to negligence, defamation, trespass, private nuisance, misrepresentation, damagingeconomic interests, and in cases of breach of public duties (Leon 2015).The torts that are applicable in case of business situation are known as economic torts.Business torts or economic torts are the wrong acts which are carried out against business entity.Such kind of acts are often carried out deliberately and often they are caused owing torecklessness that results in monetary loss for the affected party. These torts generally are notcriminal offences however some such acts become tantamount to that criminal offence and maycause as a consequence restraining in trade (Little et al. 2014). Wrongful acts often result infinancial loss due to negligent acts and the affected party can demand compensation in the courtor get an injunction order in order to stop the defendant from carrying out such kind of unlawfulactivity in the near future.Tort of negligence and misrepresentation are the most common ones that affect anorganization or a company. Negligence occurs when an individual fails to carry out the duty ofcare for a person to whom he was responsible. An individual should care for his neighbor wasestablished in the celebrated Donoghue v Stevenson’s case. Neighbor is indicative of the personwho would be affected on account of the acts or omitting the person who is performing such anact. The harm that would be a resultant of a policy should be seen from beforehand. The person
Business Law - Joystick Company_2
2BUSINESS LAWshould be able to take such reasonable step that would prove to be helpful in averting such kindof risk.In the event of making a claim that is against a person due to negligence, the aggrievedparty should establish the core elements of tort of negligence. The aggrieved should be able toestablish that the defendant owed to be taken care of and has inflicted a breach in relation to thatduty. Plaintiff should have suffered damage and injuries sustained on account of that breach. Theharm that was done should be a direct result of the breach like that of the case of Barnett vChelsea & Kensington Hospital[1969] 1 QB 428. The aggrieved party should be able to establishthat the loss that was resulted was on account of the breach and that the risk involves wasforeseeable. Reasonable person will be able to foresee such a risk while being in the position ofdefendant under the same circumstances. This principle was revealed in the Wagon Mound No1[1969] AC 388, in which the court gave the verdict that in the event of the defendant beingaccountable for foreseeable loss, he would be completely responsible for such a loss.Oyston v St Patrick’s College [2011] NSWSC 269 was an incidence of negligence of tortin case of a business situation in which a student won a case of negligence against that of ghisschool because the school in this case failed in providing the duty of care. Legal action wasbrought out by Jazmine Oyston against that of her school that was St. Patrick’s College situatedin New South Wales because of negligence. Jazmine made an allegation that during enrollmentshe was injured and had to bear the brunt of harassment along with bullying which made hersusceptible to depression, anxiety as well as panic attacks. Her account suggested the fact thatthe policies of school could not save her from the grip of harm that could be easily recognized.The court gave the verdict that risk of harm could be foreseen from before and even the school
Business Law - Joystick Company_3

End of preview

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

Related Documents
Assignment on Tort Law in Australia
|10
|2604
|41

BLAW204 - Business Law - Study Of Torts
|10
|2605
|40

Business Law Assignment | Law of Tort
|11
|2802
|162

Business Law BLAW204 - Tort Liability | Assignment
|11
|3084
|44

Commercial law - Sample Assignment
|6
|1461
|106

Negligence Law: Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, and Damages
|9
|1643
|113