Application of Contract Law and Tort Law in a Case of Organic Beef Supply

This report discusses the application of contract law and tort law in a case involving the supply of organic beef. It covers issues such as breach of contract, termination, and liability for damages. The report concludes that the law must be imposed with firmness and that the principles of contract law and tort law play a crucial role in regulating human conduct.

Law assessment

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................2
Fact Summary..................................................................................................................................3
Issues in Discussion ........................................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................9

INTRODUCTION
Contract law and tort law both are the branch of civil law. These law codifies the
provision relating to civil wrong, public nuisance, negligence, breach of contract and other
miscellaneous provisions. Both these law imposed liability on a person who caused injury to
other person including damaging their property and reputation(Al-Haidar,2018.). The given
situation in a case reflects many events and situations which attracts the provisions and principles
of tort law and contract law. The issue in a case begins from signifying willingness to agree on a
3-year deal for supply of organic beef from Red Gate Farm to Ross who owns organic food shop
and ended with the consequences which resulted into accident of the Ross which subsequently
caused shock to the chandlers wife who was suffering from chronic post traumatic stress
disorder. Chandler is a High Hill Farm Manager which claims to supply best quality beef. Ross
did the same contract with the High Hill subsequently, because Red gate farm did not given their
acceptance of the proposal. The entire situation and events in a given case attracts the provisions
of contract law and tort law.
Fact Summary
Ross runs a shop of organic food. He wish to sell best quality organic beef to its
customers and to pursue his wish he proposes his willingness regarding the supply of beef with
the supplier named Rachel at Red Gate Farm. They orally exchanged the terms and condition
relating to deal which was to be agreed for 3year and the amount and price was determined on
month basis. The red farm did not given their acceptance because the manager wanted to confirm
with its high authority about the deal. The proposal was kept standing, until the Rose hears about
the High Hill farm who claims the supply of best quality beef. Rose made contact to the manager
of the High Hill Farm named Chandler and asked for a meeting to discuss on a deal which Ross
wanted to offer. The terms and conditions relating to payment and supply are same as made in
former deal. Rose and High Hill entered into the contract with no arbitration clause. Ross
unaware about his former agreement finds the acceptance given by the Rachel by e-mail. Ross in
response to e-mail call back to Rachel with the view to revoke his offer and on part of Red Gate
they had cancelled their earlier deal in order to give acceptance to the offer made by Rose. In the
earlier case the offer was moved by the Rose with the intention to create legal obligation by

entering into a valid agreement. But the manager of the Red Hill did not give their acceptance
therefore it was incomplete agreement because it was not decided. In the later agreement, which
was legally determined between Rose and High Hill Farmer made intentionality and fulfilled all
the essential conditions of a contract. But, Ross later, find out from one of its customer named
joey enures the source of beef, rose answers that he sources beef from High Hill Farm. Joey in
replay said the beef processed in High hill farm is nor organic because they inject the chemical
substance like , insecticides and pesticides. Joey confirmed this information because he lives
near to High Hill Farm. Ross get furious and confused and decides to terminate the contract.
Ross called to chandler and asked him to terminate the contract and return his advance payment,
whereas chandler denied to return the advance payment because the transaction was done as per
the agreement and there was no condition of termination of a contract. Ross after hearing from
the chandler decided to have direct interaction with the candler but due to intoxicated he could
not drive so he asked his one of his employees Monica whether she can drive or not, she made
herself clear that she just got her licence and she is not a regular driver. But rose insisted her to
drive and take him to chandler. She could not denied the order of her boss and she decided to
drive and take her boss to High Hill Farm. She almost covered the distance but she could not
apply the break on time and the car got crashed with the vehicle which was parked in the High
Hill Farm, as the Monica had put seat belt on her she did not get any injury, but the Ross got
serious injury due to not wearing of seat belt. The chandlers wife when saw the condition car and
the blood inside it she got sudden stock because she was suffering from post traumatic disorder
and due to accident she lost herself and referred to hospital for treatment.
Issues in Discussion
the issues which are required to discuss, address and identify are as follows:
 was there any breach of contract or breach of trust in an agreement made between Rose
and Chandler:
 can Monika terminated for her gross negligence without due notice :
 can chandler claim compensation for the injury caused d to his wife.
Issue-1
Was there any breach of contract or breach of trust in an agreement made between Rose and
Chandler.

Contract law is an agreement which binds and create legal relation between the parties.
To make a contract enforceable at law, the parties to contract must fulfil all the essentials of a
legal contract. The essentials requirements are, there must be an offer, an acceptance to an offer,
consideration to an offer and intention, which must be lawful. Parties to a contract must
determine all the terms and conditions before entering into a contract. It is essentials to determine
the contract first and its all essential elements and the terms and conditions(EPRS,2018). A
contract can be of many types, it can be either oral or written, implied or expressed. The contract
always begins from the intention to create legal obligation, which starts from signifying the
willingness to other person with the view to obtain the assent(acceptance) of the other person to
the person making proposal the first requirement and the person to whom offer made signifies
his acceptance then they enter into a promise to form an agreement , it only takes the legal
enforceability when consideration is added in the agreement, which must be lawful and of some
value(Bagheri Hooshmand Kouchi and Nikbakht Nasrabadi 2018).
The principles of of contract relating to offer , acceptance , revocation and its
communication plays a very crucial role for determining the legality of a contract. A valid
contract is when it fulfil all the essential ingredients of a valid agreement, now the question
comes into mind can a contract be revoked(Bermingham,and Brennan2018.). According to
English common law of contract, ones the communication of an offer is made to the other person
it cannot be revoked after that. In the same way if the acceptance of an offer is communicated
then it cannot be revoked in the subsequent period. In the given situation Rose entered into the
contract believing that the beef which he wants for his store is of the best quality while the
chandler knowing the conditions and requirement of the agreement misrepresented the
information about the quality of beef. He did not disclose the information about the using of
chemical substance such as pesticides and fertilizers to beef(Carvalho 2021).
In any contract terms and conditions must be disclosed and made clear to the parties to contract.
Where any relevant information not mentioned in a contract or not disclosed intentionally it leads
misrepresentation of the information with an intent to cheat the party. Misrepresentation means
to cheat a person with the view to obtain other party assent(Elmore, 2019). The information
which does not disclose the whole conditions which is the requirement of a contract is the
misrepresentation of an information with the intent to deceive the other party and the same had
happened in the given situation (Karner., and et.al., 2018). The claim made by the chandler about

the quality of beef was not true as the beef was not complete organic because it was discovered
by the Rose that chemical substance being infused in the beef. This discovery is the fact in issue
which is the cause of action which provoked Ross to terminate the agreement between him and
High Hill Farm. Considering the nature of situation and the discoveries which gives an inference
that chandler knowingly and intentionality hide the information of using chemicals on beef and
his this act makes him liable and the remedy can be obtain by the Ross, firstly he can terminate
the contract(Elsarinda Sindiawaty and Pratama2021). In a famous Derry versus Peek (1989), it
was held that in this case that wherever parties knowingly and intentionally does an act of
dishonest with the purpose to obtain the assent of the other person by misrepresentation of the
information to cheat the party , the party who misrepresented the information will be liable and
no excuse will be given and the party to whom loss is caused can terminate or revoke the
contract along with other reliefs. On the basis of this judgement the law is clear that in any case
if the assent is taken with intent to deceive or cheat the person by misrepresenting the
information then the person who misrepresented the information shall be held liable.
In the given situation Ross was kept under the shadow which prevented him from
knowing the actual intention of the chandler. Ross in good faith bona-fidley believed the
information given to him about the quality of organic beef and relying on the words of chandler
he entered into an agreement with the High Hill Farm. Chandler knowingly and dishonestly
delivered the chemical infused beef to Ross which clearly in the eyes of law is a breach of
contract. The another breach chandler did is the concealing the information in order to cheat the
Ross clearly indicates the capricious and malicious actions from the chandler side.
Issue 2-
can Monika terminated for her gross negligence without due notice.
In the given situation Monica is an employee of Ross, who mistakenly caused an accident
because which has caused injury to her boss, damaged the vehicle parked and put chandlers wife
in a shock and admitted in a hospital which resulted into her termination from job for gross
negligence. Monica is an employee which has certain rights which provides the law of the land.
The Employment Act 1996, covers all the employees employed across the UK. This Act
guarantees every employees from arbitrary action of their employers. This Act also imposed
restriction on employers to terminate their employees unfairly and without any notice. In this
case Monica was alleged of gross negligence and for that reason she was given termination order

by her employer. The basis for termination must be logical and reasonable such as, professional
misconduct , violence etc. in the given situation, it can be clearly identified , even a reasonable
prudent man can understand that it was just a mistake , she was force to drive and that led to an
accident. The decision made by Ross was not taken in sensible way , he was total out of control.
The termination order to Monica is not reasonable in any sense. In case of Moore versus C&A
modes(1981), this case is about the theft done by one of the staff member of a shop, in this case
defended pleaded the that his termination order is not valid as the order was not served before
termination. The court observed that the employers can terminate any of its employees if
employee has done any misconduct. Monica did not commit any misconduct she only followed
the order of her boss and mistakenly caused accident for that reason she cannot be terminated.
Further , she did not carry any bad intention nor has the knowledge about the wife of the
chandler therefore,in no case she can be held liable for any loss or injury happened due to
accident. It was an unfortunate accident which caused injury and damages to other parties but,
the person liable for all this blunder is Ross.
Issue -3
Can chandler claim compensation for the injury caused d to his wife.
Tort law is a law which falls within the ambit of civil law. Tort is a civil wrong which
made liable to any person for causing any damages or injury to any other person. In case of Page
versus. Smith(1996) , in this case it was held that the injury relating to mind or any disorder
which is chronic in nature the person who suffered such disorder are categorised into traumatised
injury. In this case the wife of chandler was suffering from a chronic post disorder trauma and
the accident site gave her shock and she turned unconscious(Oliphant2020). .
The cases like these are recognised in the UK legal system and the act due to which the
mental injury caused and the person who commits such an act which affects the human
physiology is equally liable for his acts(Weiner, and et.al. 2018). These are negligent acts and
the person negligently without due care and caution hurts or injures any person shall be liable for
his conduct. Mind is the most sensitive part of the human body which controls the entire body
and its parts , if any damage occurred to the mind then it can cause serious problem which can
have a life time effect which is commonly know as nervous breakdown. In this case the wife of
the chandler was suffering from phobia and chronic mental disorder. The accident caused by the
Monica shocked her badly as she could bear the blood spread in car. In this case the main issues

are the breach of trust which occurred from the side of chandler and the accident which caused
the shock to chandler's wife due to negligence of Ross decision. In the last situation the liability
is on the Ross and he shall be compel to pay the compensation for the damages and loss caused
to the affected parties and their property.
CONCLUSION
As per the given situation, it can be concluded that law treats everybody equally, the
importance of laws and its principles plays a very crucial role in running the civilization. There
are many disputes and offences happened around the world and it is the law which regulates the
conduct of a every person. Law must be imposed with resolute firmness. Law is the supreme
authority which rules the people. The above report covered the application of laws and its
principles on a given situation which falls within the dominance of civil law. The laws discussed
above are the contract law and tort law and its application on the given situations.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Al-Haidar, F., 2018. Whistleblowing in Kuwait and UK against Corruption and
Misconduct. International Journal of Law and Management.
Bagheri, M., Hooshmand Kouchi, J. and Nikbakht Nasrabadi, M., 2018. Gross Negligence and
Willful Misconduct in Petroleum Joint Operating Agreements with Emphasis on British
Legal System. Judgment, 18(93), pp.17-40.
Bermingham, V. and Brennan, C., 2018. Tort law directions. Oxford University Press.
Carvalho, C., 2021. The proper law of the arbitration agreement. The United Kingdom Supreme
Court, Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” & Ors [2020]
UKSC 38 (09.10. 2020). Revista Brasileira de Arbitragem, 18(69).
Elmore, A., 2019. The State Qui Tam to Enforce Employment Law. DePaul L. Rev., 69, p.357.
Elsarinda, L.N., Sindiawaty, O. and Pratama, F.A., 2021. The Role of Immigration and
Employment Law as a Media for Licensing and Supervision of Foreign Workers in the
Republic of Indonesia. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-
Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(3), pp.5339-5346.
EPRS, C.L., 2018. The right to respect for private life: digital challenges, a comparative-law
perspective-The United Kingdom.
Karner., and et.al., 2018. European tort law: basic texts. Jan Sramek Verlag.
Oliphant, K., 2020. Compensation Funds in the United Kingdom. In Compensation Funds in
Comparative Perspective (pp. 161-188). Intersentia.
Weiner, and et.al.., 2018. Employment Law Violations. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 55, p.1049.