Business Law Discussion 2022

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

BUSINESS LAW1
Table of Contents
Issue:................................................................................................................................................2
Rule:.................................................................................................................................................2
Application:.....................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion:......................................................................................................................................5
References:......................................................................................................................................6

BUSINESS LAW2
Issue:
The issue to be discussed is the potential liabilities possessed by Betapharm Ltd towards
the potential plaintiffs.
Rule:
The modern negligence law was introduced in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
AC 562. Negligence refers to the tort resulting from the breach of duty that results into loss or
injury to the party to whom such duty is owed. In civil liability as per the Civil Liability Act 2002
(NSW), the aggrieved party can claim damages in the court of law. to place a negligence claim
successfully, the claimant is required to prove four major criteria; that the negligent party has a
duty of care, that he has breached it, that damage is being caused from such breach of duty and
finally the damage is not very remote (Goldberg, Sebok & Zipursky, 2016).
To prove the presence of duty of care, the claimant is required to show that a personal
injury is caused to him. Duty of taking care refers to the situations that have been recognized by
law. The event of failure to take care can make the defendant pay damages to the party injured.
The presence of such duty is given in the Caparo test formulated in Caparo Industries Plc v
Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 case. The test involves three steps; that the foresight of the harm
caused was reasonable as entrenched in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004
case, that there is a proximate relation as observed in Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 and that it
will be just, fair as well as reasonable for imposing of the duty to take care on the defendant.