logo

University of Bristol - Case Study Of Law | Vicarious Liability

11 Pages2612 Words117 Views
   

University of Bristol

   

Medical Law (LAWD20039)

   

Added on  2020-03-02

About This Document

In this assignment, we discussed about Contract Law and some question answers. In the first question, we discussed about. The issues that would arise in the given case based on the facts of the case are, rules of Law, Application of Law. In answer 2 we discussed about whether there is a payment liability on the partnership for the payment to Mary for the purchase of surveying instruments.

University of Bristol - Case Study Of Law | Vicarious Liability

   

University of Bristol

   

Medical Law (LAWD20039)

   Added on 2020-03-02

ShareRelated Documents
PAGE \*Running head: Contract Law1Contract LawName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note:Contents
University of Bristol - Case Study Of Law | Vicarious Liability_1
PAGE \*Title2Answer 13Issue:3Rules of Law:3Application of Law5Conclusion6Answer 26Issues6Rules of Law7Application of Law9Conclusion10Bibliography11Answer 1Issue:The issues that would arise in the given case based on the facts of the case are:(i)Whether there is a vicarious liability on Veronica for the act of Sylvester?
University of Bristol - Case Study Of Law | Vicarious Liability_2
PAGE \*Title3(ii)Whether there is a vicarious liability on Veronica for the act of Bob?Rules of Law:To answer the question whether there was a liability that existed we have to observe whether theSylvester and Bob wereemployees or independent contractor ("Difference between employeesand contractors", 2017). In the case of Performing Right Society Ltd v Mitchell and Booker(Palais de Danse) Ltd the liability of the defendant depended on if the relationship between theparties was that of individual contract or employer and employee (Performing Right Society Ltdv Mitchell and Booker (Palais de Danse) Ltd, 1924). The written contract between the partieshad regular hours of work, fixed employment period, the place of work was dictated, servicedemands exclusivity, summary dismissal right for breach of instruction, there was dominant,detailed and continuous control on each and every point. These factors led to the decision thatthe band was an employee (Burnett, 2007). The stress was laid on the level of control that wasplaced or the “control test” for determining if the band was an employee however, there wereother factors as well that were considered. In the case of Zuijs v Wirth Bros Pty Ltd (1955) thefactors which were considered by the High Court for defining the relationship between Zuijs andcircus was that the remuneration was given in wage form, summary dismissal could be donebased on misconduct, although there was no direct control that the circus had over theperformance of Zuijs act since they did not have the required expertise there was directions givenfor the other aspects (Zuijs v Wirth Bros Pty Ltd, 1955). These factors were considered to amountto employment, it was reasoned by High Court that though the performance of duties dependedon special knowledge or skill or the act of the employee maybe such that there is little room forcommand that existed, this however, was not the point what mattered was the lawful authorityfor commanding and so far as there is scope to do the same. This case is the authority for theprinciple that it is not the actual control but the right to control which is essential.
University of Bristol - Case Study Of Law | Vicarious Liability_3
PAGE \*Title4To answer the question of liability we have to look through the concept of vicariousliability, there is vicarious liability on the employer for the act of the employee or any omissionif the same is done during the course of his employment. As opined in the case of Llyod v GraceSmith the general rule for liability is that the employer is liable for the fraud and dishonestconduct or omission of the employee if such an act was done within the employee course ofemployment (Llyod v Grace Smith, 1912).In the case of New South Wales v Lepore (Thomson, 2012) it was opined by Gleeson CJ that(New South Wales v Lepore, 2003):“Not everything that an employee does at work, or during working hours, is sufficientlyconnected with the duties and responsibilities of the employee to be regarded as within the scopeof the employment. And the fact that wrongdoing occurs away from the workplace, or outsidenormal working hours, is not conclusive against liability”.In the case of Ffrench v Sestili a useful analysis of this test has been made where the employeehad misappropriated the funds during the course of his employment (Ffrench v Sestili, 2007).The Full Court Supreme Court’s decision, Debelle HJ in concurrence with Layton HJ and SulanHJ contained a useful distillation of the principles from the case law with respect to the vicariousliability doctrine. There were two propositions that were cited by Debelle which were relevant,first the fact that it was intentionally that the employee had engaged in a conduct that wascriminal or other breach of law may not be sufficient for denying vicarious liability and secondthe fact that such conduct which was engaged by the employee was contrary to the instructionsthat the employer had given was not sufficient for denying the vicarious liability.
University of Bristol - Case Study Of Law | Vicarious Liability_4

End of preview

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

Related Documents
Labour Law: Employee vs Independent Contractor, Casual to Permanent Conversion, Contractor's Agreement, Deduction from Salary, Additional Working Hours, Gender Pay Equity, Duty to Obey Employer Orders
|17
|3777
|139

Employment Act 1955 - Assignment
|9
|2952
|575

Workplace Law Assignment Questions based on Case Study 2017
|11
|2056
|221

Difference between employee and independent contractor | Law
|7
|1133
|312

BSL202 Workplace Law: Assignment
|10
|2205
|287

Difference Between Employee and Independent Contractor
|10
|1731
|44