Commercial Law: Negligence and Contractual Issues

Running head: COMMERCIAL LAW
Commercial Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1COMMERCIAL LAW
QUESTION 1
Issue
This is a case of negligence shown by the employer towards his employee.
This the issue of this case is to determine whether Peter is capable of suing his
employers for they had been negligence towards Peter’s well-being.
Rule
The Common Law discusses about the significance of the responsibility of the
employers toward his employees so that it does not give rise to a negligence or a
cause of action which would give rise to legal action against the tortfeasor (Cane and
Atiyah 2013.). Bringing charges under negligence is an essentially helpful provision
when there is no contract between the claimant and the tortfeasor, and therefore the
parties cannot depend on the application and outcomes of the rights laid down under
the specific law of contract in order to claim damages. To bring charges for negligent
behaviour, the claimant must satisfy the following three essential elements:
1. Duty of care
The Singapore Court of appeal in the year 2007 laid down a landmark
judgment in the case of Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science &
Technology Agency [2007] 1 SLR 720 (“the Spandeck Case”) pertaining to a 2 part
test that determine the presence of a duty of care of the tortfeasor or defendant. The
2 part test includes the factor of proximity and public policy as the main
considerations for determining the duty of care of the defendant. However, before
these two factors are discussed, the foreseeability of the harm that the plaintiff
might experience due to the defendant’s failure to carry out his duty of care must be
considered (Chan 2016).
a. Foreseeability
It is held that the defendant must be in a position to foresee the harm that the
plaintiff might experience due to the defendant’s failure to carry out the duty of care.
b. Proximity
The Spandeck case held that a plaintiff or a claimant must have enough
justification pertaining to the legal proximity between him and the tortfeasor or

2COMMERCIAL LAW
defendant. In addition the criteria of voluntary assumption of duty and reliance
must be considered while deciding as to the proximity between the parties. It is said
that the duty of care arises immediately when a defendant voluntarily assume to
have a responsibility regarding his act or omission towards the claimant and the
claimant to rely on such responsibility of the defendant.
c. Public policy
Public policy made by the lawmakers needs to be considered while
determining the duty of care of the tortfeasor the defendant. Public policies have the
tendency to negate or limit the duty of care that a defendant may owe towards a
plaintiff and in this situation the defendant could not be held responsible for the
failure to carry out his duty of care as it is hindered by the public policy.
2. Breach of such duty
Not only citing the breach of duty, the plaintiff must also laid down the
standard of care, which was expected from the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff
must prove that the defendant owe certain standard of care towards the plaintiff
however failed to comply with such standards, which resulted in the breach of such
duty of care.
3. Causation and Remoteness of the damage
Lastly, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s failure to carry out his duty
of care has resulted to the damage that he has suffered and not because of some
other reason. In addition the plaintiff must also prove that the damage or harm
caused to him was not too remote to foresee by the defendant (Fordham 2017).
Application
In the given case, Peter suffered from a terrible accident in his office building
as he fell down the stairs and was severely injured on his arms and face. Peter had
no knowledge of the fact that the staircase was under renovation and the office
authority asked the staff to use to lift instead during that period of time. As peter was
on leave, he had no idea of this fact. In this scenario, Peter could hold his employer,
Fashion Designs Ltd liable for his injury as he could establish the fact that his
employer had a duty of care towards his safety.