Legal Solutions for Desklib - Contracts, Liability, and Employment Rights

Get legal solutions for contracts, liability, and employment rights at Desklib. This document covers topics such as whether Fresco violated the law by displaying fishes, whether customers can claim wine bottles in exchange for plastic bags, whether Anita can sue her employers under the law of vicarious liability, and whether Gabriella can take legal action against her former employers. The document also provides relevant laws and their application to each case.

1
Contents
Solution 1...................................................................................................................................2
Issue........................................................................................................................................2
Relevant Law..........................................................................................................................2
Application of law..................................................................................................................2
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................3
Solution 2...................................................................................................................................3
Issue........................................................................................................................................3
Relevant Law..........................................................................................................................3
Application of law..................................................................................................................3
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................4
Solution 3...................................................................................................................................4
Issue........................................................................................................................................4
Relevant Law..........................................................................................................................4
Application of law..................................................................................................................5
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................5
Solution 4...................................................................................................................................5
Issue........................................................................................................................................5
Relevant Law..........................................................................................................................5
Application of law..................................................................................................................6
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................6
Reference list..............................................................................................................................7

2
Solution 1
Issue
Whether Fresco has violated the law by displaying the fishes at the counter and is regarded as
an offer for sale?
Relevant Law
A valid contract is the combination of an offer, an acceptance, legal intention, consideration
and capacity. An offeror when transfers his intention to the offeree then an offer is made. As
per Guthing v Lynn (1831). An offer can be made to the entire world or to the world at large.
But, when offers are not made, rather, offers are invited, then, it is categorised as an act of
invitation to treat. In an invitation, offers are received by an inviter and if an inviter accepts
offer, then, there is a valid contract. The display of goods at the shelf or the counter is
considered as an act of invitation to treat and is held in Pharmaceutical Society of Great
Britain v Boots Cash Chemists [1953].1
Application of law
As per the facts of the case, Dogford Council has send a court summons to Fresco after
inspectors from the department of food health and safety noticed that fish being sold in the
Sushi counter had been imported from a river near to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power
plant in Japan which was hit by a powerful earthquake in 2011. Now, one of the law was that
it is not legal to “offer for sale” any food imported from an area of the world where there is a
high possibility radioactive material. Before the customers could buy the same, the fish were
removed from the shelf by the store manager after he realised the error but the council insists
that the superstore has broken the law.
It is submitted that the display of the fishes at the counter is not an act of an offer to sale of
fishes to the customers as per Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v
Boots Cash Chemists [1953] the display of fishes is only an act of invitation to treat and any
customer who is interested in buying the fishes must come forward and must make an offer to
the manager.
Thus, there is no law that is broken by Fresco as the act of Fresco was not in contradictory to
the law laid down by the legislation.
1 E, Maclntyre, Business Law, 3rd edition, 2007, Pearson Longman.

3
Conclusion
Fresco has not violated any law as the display of the fishes is only an act of invitation to treat
and no an act of offer for sale.
Solution 2
Issue
Whether the customers can claim the bottle of wine in exchange of the plastic bags from
Fresco?
Relevant Law
A valid contract is the combination of an offer, an acceptance, legal intention, consideration
and capacity. An offeror when transfers his intention to the offeree then an offer is made. As
per Guthing v Lynn (1831). an offer can be made to the entire world or to the world at large.
When the offer is made by the offeror specifying the mode of acceptance, then, a unilateral
offer is made and is held in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892]. The offeree
when gave his assent to the offer then an acceptance is made and is held in Entores v Miles
Far East Corp (1955). When a unilateral offer is made then the acceptance is said to be
complete by complying with the mode of acceptance and is held in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke
Ball Company [1892]. In law an agreement is enforceable when the same is supported with
valid consideration (Re McArdle (1951). As per Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1959] a
consideration must be sufficient if not absolute. The parties must have legal intention and
have legal capacity.2
The compliance of all the elements results in contract formation.
Application of law
As per the facts of the case, Fresco in order to run a promotional campaign was offering a
prosecco wine to customers who brought back 10 used and torn plastic shopping bags as part
of an effort to protect the environment. However, after some time, the manager has stopped
of giving wine bottles when he got aware that the plastic bags are of no worth and the
customers were getting wine bottles by providing something which was worth less.
It is now submitted that Fresco has made an offer to the customers at large that by proving the
shopping bags they will get wine bottles. Thus, a valid offer was made as per Guthing v
Lynn . The customers by acting on the mode of acceptance, has acted as per the desires of
Fresco and thus an acceptance was made by conduct as per Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company.
2 Ibid.

4
Now, the producing of plastic bags in return of wine bottles is held to be a valid consideration
in law as per Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd. The consideration provided by the
customers was not absolute but have sufficiency in the eyes of law to make valid contract
with Fresco.
Thus, the customers who had brought their plastic bags and handed it in to the store have the
legal right to receive their bottle of wine.
Conclusion
Thus, the customers can claim the bottle of wine in exchange of the plastic bags from Fresco
as there is a valid consideration amid the parties making the contract enforceable in law.
Solution 3
Issue
Whether Anita can sue her employers under the law of vicarious liability for the injures that
are sustained by her?
Relevant Law
One of the laws under which any plaintiff can sue the defendant to make good the loss
suffered by him is the civil law. The law of vicarious liability is the part of the civil law. The
vicarious liability is legal frameworks under which the employee has the right to sue the
employer for the losses that are caused to her provided some essentials are comply with. The
basic reasons for the shift of the liability is that since the employee is taking actions on behalf
of the employer, thus, it is the duty of the employers to deal with the liability of the employee
which are incurred by him while acting for the employer. Thus, the main elements of
vicarious liability are:3
i. That the relationship amid the parties must be of an employer and an employee as
held in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994);
ii. That the employee must be acting within the curse of employment;
iii. That the liability that is generated by an employee was while carrying out his
course of employment;
iv. That the liability is not generated by carrying out any criminal action;
v. That the acts of the employee must not be personal in nature.
When all the elements are complying with then the employer must compensate for the
liabilities that are generated by the employee.
3 P. Giliker, ‘Vicarious Liability in Tort: A Comparative Perspective’ (2010).

5
Application of law
An annual Black Friday event was organised by Fresco super store where the items are to be
sold at high discount prices. The event was advertised for 2 weeks and the customers are very
keen to take part in the event. The managers are aware that the event can be dangerous as
people can hurt by running at the store. Anita was the employee of the store and was in
charge of opening the store at 9 AM. The people were gathered outside the store from 5 AM
and as soon she opened the store she was pushed and resulted in fracturing her skull and
breaking her leg. She can sue her employers for her injuries under vicarious liability as:
i. Anita and the Fresco super store are in the relationship of an employer and
employee;
ii. That Anita is carrying out her duties as when she was hit by the crowd and sustain
injures;
iii. That the acts of Anta were neither criminal nor personal in nature.
Thus, Anita can easily transfer her liabilities to her employer.
Conclusion
Thus, Anita can easily sue her employers under the law of vicarious liability for the injures
that are sustained by her.
Solution 4
Issue
Whether Gabriella can take legal action against her former employers?
Relevant Law
One of the most prominent legislation that is enacted for the protection of the employees at
the hands of the employers is the Employment Rights Act 1996. As per section 230 of the
Act, a person is held to be an employee when such person is working under the contract of
Employment (Franks v Reuters Ltd (2003).4
An employee can bring an bring an action against his employer provided the employee has
been dismissed wrongfully or unfairly or a discrimination was made against such an
employee.
When no notice was provided and the employee was dismissed, then, the employee is said to
have dismissed wrongfully. A due notice must be served to the employee before termination
as per section 86 of the Act and the length of the notice depends upon the term of the
employment. Thus, any employee who has worked for more than 2 to 10 years must be
4 Thompsons, ‘An employee or a worker’, September 2005, Issue 103.

6
served with 1 week notice for every year. If section 86 is breached then the dismissal is
wrongful as held in The Scotts Company (UK) Limited v Budd (2002)5. The aggrieved
employee can sue the employer for the compensation, lost of earning and damages and is held
in Boyo v Lambeth London Borough Council [1994]. But as per M-Choice UK Ltd v Aalders
(2014), a dismissal without notice is permissible in summary dismissal.6
Further, when the employee is dismissed without giving any kind of justified grounds then
the dismissal is unfair. But, it is necessary that the employee must be working for at least 2
years and is held in Contrast, Community Integrated Care Ltd v De Smith (2008). The
aggrieved employee has a period of 3 months to bring his claim and is held in Moore v C &
A Modes (1981). As per section 99 of the act, a female employee can bring claim after 3
months by seeking her maternity rights.
Also, a dismissal can be considered as a direct discrimination under section 13 of The
Equality Act 2010 act if employee is dismissed within the 9 protected characteristics. The
removal of the female employee because of the reason of her pregnancy is discrimination as
per section 18 of the Act and as held in Brown v Rentokil (1998).
Application of law
Gabriella was the employee of Fresco supermarket for three years. Thus, as per section 230
of the ACT, she is the employee of the super market and must avail all the employee benefits.
It was found that she was dismissed from the job by the store detective by claiming that he
has been seen stealing packs of nappies from the children aisle. However, there was no notice
period that was served to her even when she was working at the store for three years. Thus, as
per The Scotts Company (UK) Limited v Budd, the dismissal is wrongful.
Also, she told the human resource department that she is pregnant and since then the manager
had been unkind to her to the extent that they even refused to say hello to her or sit next to
her in the staff canteen. She was removed from the job without giving any adequate reasons
and thus as per Moore v C & A Modes (1981), her removal was unfair.
Also, as per section 18 of the 2010 Act, the dismissal of Gabriella was direct dismissal and
thus she can sue the store for compensation.
Conclusion
Gabriella dismissal was wrongful, unfair and a direct discrimination and thus she can bring
an action against the store for her loss.
5A. Cohen, ‘The Conundrum of Sickness during the notice period’ (2017).
6 J. Wright, ‘Unfair Dismissal Law Fourth Edition’ (2014), Lulu.com.

7
Reference list
Books/Articles/Journals
Cohen, A., ‘The Conundrum of Sickness during the notice period’ (2017).
Giliker, P., ‘Vicarious Liability in Tort: A Comparative Perspective’ (2010).
Maclntyre E, 2007, Business Law, 3rd edition, Pearson Longman.
Thompsons, ‘An employee or a worker’, September 2005, Issue 103.
Wright, J., ‘Unfair Dismissal Law Fourth Edition’ (2014), Lulu.com.
Case laws
Boyo v Lambeth London Borough Council [1994].
Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994);
Brown v Rentokil (1998).
Contrast, Community Integrated Care Ltd v De Smith (2008).
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1959]
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892].
Entores v Miles Far East Corp (1955).
Guthing v Lynn (1831).
Franks v Reuters Ltd (2003).
M-Choice UK Ltd v Aalders (2014).
Moore v C & A Modes (1981).
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists [1953] 1 QB 401.
Re McArdle (1951).
The Scotts Company (UK) Limited v Budd (2002). Maclntyre E, 2007, Business Law, 3rd
edition, Pearson Longman.