logo

Commercial Law Issue- Aldi Supermarkets

   

Added on  2020-05-16

8 Pages1421 Words52 Views
Running head: COMMERCIAL LAW0Commercial Law
Commercial Law Issue- Aldi Supermarkets_1
COMMERCIAL LAW1Issue 1The issue is whether Aldi Supermarkets owes a duty of care to Tamara.Rule 1The law of negligence is applied in the given case which is a part of common law inAustralia. Negligence is defined as a person’s breach of the duty of care due to which anotherperson faces injury or loss (Steele, 2010). In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 case,Lord Atkin provided the key elements of the law of negligence which include the duty ofcare, breach of such duty and resulting damages (Cornock, 2011). In Caparo Industries Plc. vDickman [1990] 2 AC 605 case, Lord Bridge provide the principle of “Caparo test” whichprovides three stages for imposing a duty of care which includes reasonable foreseeability,proximity relationship, and reasonable reason to impose a duty of care (Sokol, 2012). Application 1In this case, a large number of people visit supermarkets, and it is reasonable to understandthat supermarket should continuously clean their floor to ensure that customers are notgetting injured by slipping on the floor. Aldi supermarkets have reasonable foreseeability ofcleaning the floor; therefore, they have a duty of care towards Tamara.Conclusion 1In conclusion, it is reasonable for Aldi Supermarkets to clear their floor to prevent any injuryto customers, therefore, they have a duty of care towards Tamara.
Commercial Law Issue- Aldi Supermarkets_2
COMMERCIAL LAW2Issue 2The issue is whether Aldi Supermarkets breached their duty of care. Rule 2A breach of duty occurs if a person who has a duty of care towards another individual failedto fulfil the standard which resulted in causing injury to the party. In Mersey Docks andHarbour Board Ltd v Coggins and Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 345 HL, the courtheld that negligence is not performing an action which a reasonable person would have donein similar circumstances.Application 2Supermarkets are liable towards their customers’ security; therefore, it is reasonable tounderstand that Aldi Supermarkets has a duty to clean the floor in order to avoid any potentialinjury to consumers and they failed to meet required safety standards.Conclusion 2To conclude, Aldi Supermarket failed to meet the standard care since they did not clean thefloor which caused injury to Tamara.
Commercial Law Issue- Aldi Supermarkets_3

End of preview

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

Related Documents
Law of Tort Question Answer 2022
|7
|1648
|23

Negligence and Duty of Care in Commercial Law: A Case Study of Aldi Supermarkets
|8
|1503
|299

Law Assignment- Commercial Law Assignment
|10
|1483
|65

Commercial Law Name of the University Author
|9
|1485
|30

Assignment on Commercial Laws
|6
|1395
|79

Case Study Analysis
|7
|1723
|270