Business Law

This document provides an analysis of two questions related to assault and battery in the context of business law. It discusses the elements required to establish assault and battery, and concludes with the liability of the defendant in each case.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Table of Contents
Question 1: ASSAUT.................................................................................................................2
Question 2: BATTERY..............................................................................................................4

2BUSINESS LAW
Question 1: ASSAUT
Issue
Did Bob commit an act of Assault against Jack?
Rule
An intentional act causing a person reasonable apprehension or fear of an immediate
harmful or offensive contact referred to as an assault.
Analysis
Bob committed an intentional act to make Jack apprehended of getting hurt by
throwing the basketball on Jack’s face. Assault is believes to be an attempt to hurt someone
which may also include threats or attacking behaviour against such person. It is an intentional
attempt to deploy force or hurt to enjoy the other person. It is held as an attempted battery. In
case of assault, the person assaulting does not actually make a physical contact with the
person whom he is assaulting (Levine et al). This is the basic difference between assault and
battery. An apprehension or threat of being hurt is sufficient to constitute an act of assault.
Assault can be held both as an intentional tort and a criminal act. The only essential element
to constitute assault is to establish the intention of the person who is committing an act of
assault on another.
Jack had a reasonable apprehension or fear of an immediate harmful or offensive
contact because Bob committed an assault on Jack in order to make him frightened and lose
his confidence so that he does not play to the best of his ability in the game. It can be
established from Bob’s statements that he had the intention of causing reasonable
apprehension of an immediate offensive contact to Jack.

3BUSINESS LAW
Conclusion
Therefore, Bob would be held liable for assaulting Jack.
.

4BUSINESS LAW
Question 2: BATTERY
Issue
Did Bob commit an act of Battery against Jack?
Rule
An intentional act causing harmful or offensive contact to another person is
considered as an act of battery.
Analysis
The fact that Bob made contact, even though it was indirect, by throwing the ball on
his face is sufficient to establish an act of battery. Bob committed a battery on Jack in order
to make him frightened and lose his confidence so that he does not play to the best of his
ability in the game. Alike assault, battery too is considered as an intentional tort and a
criminal act under the law of tort and criminal law respectively. It has been stated that the
following essential elements are necessary to be present in an act to constitute it as an act of
battery: a) an act of intentional touching; b) such touch must be offensive or harmful; and c)
the victim did not give consent for such offensive touch.
In an act of battery, the intent to harm the victim is not vital, instead it is important to
establish that the person had an intention to cause contact with the victim. In addition, it is
also considered that a person acting recklessly with a criminal intent to make contact to cause
harm, and eventually does so, would constitute an act of battery.
It can be established from Bob’s act was intentional of causing offensive contact to
hurt Jack.
Conclusion
Therefore, Bob would be held liable for committing an act of Battery on Jack.

5BUSINESS LAW