Law of Tort and Negligence: A Case Study on Good Bake Ltd and Linda | Desklib

This report discusses the case of Linda who won a double oven in a competition by Good Bake Ltd and faced damages due to negligence. It explains the duty of care, breach of duty, and compensation claims. It also covers the winding up of a company. Subject: Law for Business Managers | Course Code: N/A | College/University: N/A

Law for Business Managers

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
Part 1............................................................................................................................................3
PART 2........................................................................................................................................5
PART-3........................................................................................................................................7
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................9
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION
Law of tort governs the remedies against civil wrong and person is liable for the wrongful
act if it is done intentionally or accidentality. The injuries or aggrieved party has to compensate
damages through paying capital. Along with this, damages may include compensation for loss
of property, medical expense or punitive damages to punish the wrong doer. The injured party
will seek compensation through court process and fallibility may arise due to negligence,
intentional failure to act when person is liable for any duty. The present report has been based
on case of Lind who won double oven by Good bake Ltd in a competition. After one month of
regular use of oven there was various damaged faced by Linda. The present study will discuss
the salutatory action taken by Linda and how company can claim damages.
MAIN BODY
Part 1
In the case of Linda it has been identified that she took participation in the radio Norwich
competition in which she won first prize a brand and top range double oven by Good bake
Appliances Ltd. Along with this, after a month oven explodes and cause damage to Linda and
kitchen furniture.
Rule: In the case of Linda rule of contract will be applied and when one party breaks a
promise then other parties to the agreement might suffer loss due to non performance of the
obligations. Along with this, in case of Linda it was the duty of Good Bake limited to make
Linda aware about the use of Oven and precaution which need to be taken in order to deal with r
risk which have higher chances to appear. In addition to this, there was negligence form the side
of company. The term negligence is define as failure to perform the basic care which a
reasonable person should have performed in all situation (Foulon, 2019). It basically a mode in
which type of injuries can occur if suitable precaution has not been taken into consideration.
There is an important condition under the liability for negligence that defendant owes a legal
duty towards plaintiff. In case of Grant Vs Australian Knitting Mills Ltd., 1935. The plaintiff
purchases tow sets of woollen underwear after wearing customer suffered from skin diseases
and the reason for problem was excess amount of sulphates present in the wool. Although at
the time of washing sulphate was not removed so in this case the manufacture was held liable
as they were not liable to perform their duty correctly. According to law of tort it is the duty of

defendant to owe a duty of care towards the plaintiff. In the case of Linda there is breach of duty
to take care and in liberality of negligence it is one of the most important condition. Although in
law of tort damage suffer by plaintiff will be the result of the breach of the duty. The harm can
be in form of physical, reputation, property and economic loss (Sullivan and Schweikart, 2019).
Moreover, one of the landmark case is Donahue vs Stevenson plaintiff had gone to cafe to
have a ginger beer the bottle was sealed with opaque cork. While emptying the bottle
decomposed body of snail came out and plaintiff was ill due to the part of consumption. It was
held by the court that the manufacture was liable for the negligence because there was lack of
reasonable care and due to that customer suffer injury and manufacturer owes a duty of care to
the plaintiff.
In case of Linda it was the duty of Good bake to make the customer aware about the use
of double oven and give details regarding the risk. There are some steps that need to be prove
by the plaintiff in order claim the compensation. In case of duty of care defendant owed duty to
the plaintiff and they have to act under recognize legal relationships. Linda was also customer
of Good bake duty was to take care of the oven gifted and it should be at least cover under
guarantee (Volkova and et.al., 2019). Along with this, Linda has only used oven for 1 month so
the quality of the product is not good. Thus, Linda can apply under duty of care as she has
suffered economic and various other damages. Moreover, cause in facts of the injury need to
be proved under the traditional riles of legal duty plaintiff have to prove that defendants action
which has cause injury to plaintiff. In case of Linda there was no instruction given by Good
bake regarding the use of oven per day, maxim heat and cleaning of oven in order to deal with
the precaution. In addition to this, for claiming the injury it is important for Linda to prove
legal recognized harm and it can be in form of physical or property. It is not enough for the
defendant to failed exercise reasonable care and it must result in actual damages to a person.
Personal injury can be brought in the court with appropriate time frame.
In case of Lind it can file suit against Radio Norwich also for the damaged prize as
well as Good bake company. The sales of good act also state that it is the duty of manufacture
to make customer aware about goods and services so that it can reduce the impact of risk.
Moreover, one of the duty of services provider is to provides relevant information to the client
so that risk can be handle properly and there is no negligence of duty (Zipursky, 2021). Thus,
claimant can ask for capital compensation as Linda need to redecorate its kitchen and most of

electronic products was also destroyed during the blast of oven. Linda can also file complainant
in consumer court regarding the defective product and services as well as ask for the
compensation. The consumer services act also states that it is the duty of manufacture to
provide details regarding the use of products so that rKostal, R. and Chamberlain, E., 2022.isk
can be minimized. If the duty of care has been followed by the Good bake than there would no
issue occurred and no compensation need to be paid.
PART 2
In case of Linda it has been identified that negligence has been done by Good bake
company but the organization has filed negligence on Lind. The company has stated that Lind
is not customer of organization as it has won the prize from the competition conducted by
Radio Norwich. All the duty regarding the risk procedure and use of products has been
described in the book of double oven. Also, the product do fall in criteria of guarantee but the
organization can not be blamed for paying the extra expenses related to damages. Lind need to
sue the competition party as they have provided the product to her and it was there duty to
make the Linda aware about the use of double oven (Koko and Nkemjika, 2021). Good bake
have valid claim regarding Linda as they have to not made any agreement regarding buying and
selling of products. Instead, a contract between Radio Norwich has been made as Lind wins
she was warded with the first prize. Although there is need to prove that there has been negligent
done by the customer. Due to excessive use of double oven there was blast in the kitchen and
it has also seen in the case that near oven Lind has kept her mobile phone and laptop. So
there are higher chances that due to heat of oven electronic devises exploded and it might have
cause short circulate in oven too (Kostal and Chamberlain, 2022.). Although full compensation
can not be asked from the company as Linda is also responsible for breach of duty to not take
care of the product. In addition to this, the claim need to filled with the court within legal
statutory time limit otherwise no outcomes will come.
In UK the time limit is three years from the date of incident and within prescribe time
limit it need to be covered. Although the liability is on customer because it need to make use of
the product in proper way and if it's their own fault then no suit can be filled on company
regarding duty of care (Singh and Khan, 2021). The harm done to company is very big because
it might lose the potential customer and brand value will decrease that will have direct impact on
the productivity of organization. In addition to this, if defect has been found in the product than

customer has right to claim for the damages and sue manufacturer. Although in case of Linda
has misused the product and due to that there was occurrence of dangerous act. The law of tort
also state that damages may be awardee for personal injury or property but not be awarded for
economic loss purely. Thus, it can be stated that Good bake company will only pay little
compensation as the product was in guardee period but no amount related to damage to property
will be give because it was customer personal injury.
In many cases, there are contractual relationship between the two parties such as good bake
appliances and Linda. The contractual relationship was important because in order to success the
claim for negligence. In the context of civil law, it relates to negligence has grown and evolved
to deal with condition that arise between the two parties where no contract is made and written
implied between them. This claim is directly argued that the company was entitled to duty of
care because of the deficient goods and people suffering the damages (Luther, 2021). There are
three-fold tests which must be used to identify the duty of care existed. The test is required the
relationship of proximity, reasonable to impose liability and must be fair, the result must be
defendants conduct. The negligence case are based on the two ways such a criminal and case
law. In order to negligent, it is essential to prove the duty of care and damage causes. If the good
bake appliances not able prove to damage causes gain the Linda and not able to defendant their
products than they re able to bring success against the Linda. If company not able to defend in
court than it can damage the business reputation and its brand and company may have to face
more difficulties which negatively impact. If good-bake appliances is able to claim for
negligence against the Linda than it helps company to bring success claim against the Linda.
The other elements is there is actually been as breach of duty of care. In the context of
action, the court will consider the standards of care that are reasonable person. If nay defendant
are failed to meet the standards of court than the standard need to be adjusted for any reason. The
main reason for adjusted include the professional practices which may expect to be followed and
standards must be used as well as the common practices are also used because it considers
negligent. If there are high risk in the defendant action than the court expects the extra
precautions (Oberdiek, 2021). The court may decide that the defendant meet the duty of care. If
there are some social benefits to the Linda or defendant action than the court may decide that
they not breach their duty of care. At least three elements must establish show that plaintiff
suffers damage or loss as direct consequences of the defendant breach of duty of care.

In the essential for negligence, its consist the main negligence which are based on condition
such as duty of care, the duty also must be towards the plaintiff, actual cause, breach of duty to
take care, proximate cause, consequential harm to the plaintiff. The defence are also available for
the suit of negligence includes the contributory negligence by the plaintiff, inevitable accident,
etc.
PART-3
Winding up of company
Winding up refer as the proceeding by which company is dissolved. It means the
company liabilities are paid off, assets are disposed off as well as distributed proportion to their
holding in the business. Winding up company is also known as the liquidate limited company
and money left to shareholders. There are three types of liquidation and winding up such as
member's voluntary liquidation, compulsory liquidation and creditor voluntary liquidation. In the
context of compulsory liquidation, company not able to pay its debt and company apply to court
to wind up it (Olarinde, Jacob and Emokiniovo, 2021). The member voluntary liquidation is
company able to pay is debt, but they want t wind up their company. In the context of creditors
voluntary liquidation, company not able to pay its debt, and they involve its creditor to liquidate
it.
Company can arrange their liquidation to stop liquidated company if company have
enough shareholder agree and cannot pay its debt. There are various reason to wind up business
which may includes the factors such a misfortune, unforeseen condition and bankruptcy. The law
provides business various types of winding up by mechanism of voluntary and mechanism
winding up. In the context of compulsory winding up is incorporated under the company act
2013 by the order of tribunal. If the company is not engaged in any default than the company
may opt for voluntary winding up under the provision under bankruptcy and solvency act.
According to the case law, there are concepts to wind up business which includes the
winding up by the supervision of court, compulsory winding up by the court and voluntary
winding up by creditors and members. The winding up of business means the company name
removes from the register of company 2013 (Koh, Puchniak and Tan, 2019). in the context of
compulsory winding up company involves the business contract with employees contracts,
outstanding legal disputed are settled. The winding up petition is heard in the high court. It is the
method of dissolving and ending business. This involves the pay off any existing creditors,

selling company assets and distributing assets between the existing shareholders. the company
winding up in United Kingdom, it dependent on company is insolvent and solvent.
In the context of the procedure for winding up a solvent company so, the resolution
made b the company shareholders. There are two ways to go about the winding up business if
that is solvent such as member voluntary liquidation and company dissolution.
The member voluntary liquidation is solvent company that involves the shareholders agree to
voluntary through appointment of liquidator (Smit, 2021).
In the context of company dissolution, business need to be solvent for there to be
company dissolution. It includes that business not able to change there name over the past 3
months, business also must not currently be under the insolvency process and liquidation threats.
Company also not have the outstanding credit agreement like company voluntary agreements.
It is the simplest way to winding up business in United Kingdom. In this navigate the process in
which DS01 form which signed by the company director. This form will send to the companies
house and notifiable parties such as employee, creditors and shareholders of company. After the
pass of three months. The court will run the final notice on company dissolution. It is the easiest
and financial efficient procedure for liquidate company that is currently solvent.
Under the procedure for winding up company as insolvent. In this situation, there is the
best way to wind up company with liquidation. There are two types of winding up exit such as
compulsory winding up and voluntary winding up. In the context of credit voluntary liquidation,
If the business is insolvent and not able to restructuring than they can use the provision of
creditor voluntary liquidation. There are some three parts in liquidators such process like find the
agreement on the claim of the creditor to business (Wee and Kiu, 2020). If they realize the any
asst of company. Investigate bout the any dissolution and affairs to business.
In the voluntary liquidation, the process is control by the shareholders of company if the
company is insolvent and company also declare statutory by directors. If there is not declaration
is made than the liquidation comes on the creditor voluntary liquidation. In this the creditors
confirm the appointments and also control the choice of liquidators.
The effects on the liquidation procedures on existing contract that parties have the right to
terminate contracts and entry into the insolvency process. But the parties have the contractual
termination contract rights by enter into insolvency process. The commencements of winding up

process my effect on the contracts such as non-performance and disclaimer. In non-performance,
the administrator not have power of disclaimer, and they also perform a contract is the
performers are not interested in creditors.
Court insolvent in the liquidation procedures
In voluntary liquidation, it is commenced out of court by the resolution of the business
shareholders and there is no involvement of court. In the compulsory voluntary, the court is act
as gate keeper, the application is required to court to commence the process.
There are some basic concepts in company is insolvent cause creditors is not paid full so,
it is more complex (Mayank Singhal and Kanika Goel, 2018). Moreover, creditors are divided
into two parts such as unsecured creditor's ad secured creditors. The unsecured creditors are
directly imposed in the commencement and secured creditors are unaffected by the liquidation
process. From the above discuss, found that the insolvent company go under the voluntary
winding up and solvent company wound under the compulsory.
CONCLUSION
As the conclusion, the business law for manager is legal framework within the enterprise
operates. law for business manager to achieve the objectives within includes the indemnity,
contracts, banking and arbitration. Manger conducts the good knowledge of fundaments
principle of contract and know about the dispute resolution method. Good bake oven was not
defective so company decide to bring the claim for negligence against the Linda so, this report is
discussed the Linda with regards option with statutory provision and also claim for negligence
against the Linda in order to bring a success claim against the Linda because oven was not
defective. This report also elaborated the winding up of company wit different mechanism
though relevant case law and statutory provision.

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Foulon, J., 2019. Recent developments in French environmental law: recognition and
implementation of ecological damage in French tort law. Environmental Law
Review.21(4). pp.309-317.
Koh, A.K., Puchniak, D.W. and Tan, C.H., 2019. Company Law (2019).
Koko, M. and Nkemjika, C. V., 2021. The concept of tort liability in education: What the teacher
should know. European Journal of Education Studies, 8(6).
Kostal, R. and Chamberlain, E., 2022. The reinvention of Canadian tort law, 1945–95: Jordan
House as a case study. University of Toronto Law Journal, p.e20210096.
Luther, G.W., 2021. The Key Elements of Medical Negligence—Duty. Neurosurgery. 88(6).
pp.1051-1055.
Mayank Singhal, L.L.M. and Kanika Goel, L.L.M.,2018. Comparative Analysis of winding up of
a Company: Perspectives in UK, USA & India.
Oberdiek, J., 2021. The Wrong in Negligence. Oxford Journal of Legal Studie. 41(4). pp.1174-
1196.
Olarinde, S.E., Jacob, I.U. and Emokiniovo, A.V., 2021. The Cogency and Justifiability of the
Just-andEquitable Grounds for Compulsory Winding-Up of Companies by the Courts in
Nigeria. Review of International Geographical Education Online. 11(8). pp.211-225.
Singh, A. and Khan, A., 2021. Deficiency in Medical Services under Consumer Protection Law
and Equivalency of Medical Negligence under the Law of Torts. Avinash Singh, Afsana
Khan, International Journal of Legal Research. 8(1). pp.311-328.
Smit, G., 2021. Winding-up solvent companies in deadlock. Without Prejudice, 21(2), pp.7-8.
Sullivan, H. R. and Schweikart, S. J., 2019. Are current tort liability doctrines adequate for
addressing injury caused by AI?. AMA journal of ethics.21(2). pp.160-166.
Volkova, M. A. and et.al., 2019. Correlation of The Concepts of" Terrorism"," Terrorist Act",
and" Act of Terrorism" in Obligations in The Law of Tort. International Journal of
Recent Technology and Engineering.8(3). pp.7166-7170.
Wee, M.S. and Kiu, Y.Y., 2020. Corporate Governance in Winding Up—Statutory Derivative
Actions and Professional Liquidators.
1

Zipursky, B. C., 2021. From Law to Moral Philosophy in Theorizing about Negligence. Agency,
Negligence and Responsibility, p.223.
Online references
A, B., 2018. [Online]. Available through <>
2