Griffith Uni 2105AFE - Business Law: ILAC Question on Negligence

This assignment solution addresses a hypothetical ILAC (Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion) question related to the tort of negligence in business law. The scenario involves a business owner, Kathy, seeking advice and potentially suing a consultant, Peter, for negligence due to the poor performance of her new business. The document meticulously examines whether Peter owed Kathy a duty of care, if he breached that duty, and if his actions caused foreseeable damages. It references relevant legal principles, including the Queensland Civil Liabilities Act, and analyzes the arguments for and against Peter's liability. The conclusion determines whether the damages can be linked to Peter's advice. The assignment highlights the importance of establishing a duty of care, proving a breach of that duty, and demonstrating a causal link between the breach and the damages suffered. It also considers the foreseeability of risk and the actions of a reasonable person in similar circumstances.

Running head: HYPOTHETICAL ILAC QUESTION 1
Hypothetical Ilac Question
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation

HYPOTHETICAL ILAC QUESTION 2
Issues
Has Peter committed the tort of negligence?
Law/principles
For Kathy to sue peter successfully, she must institute various aspects: Peter breached the
duty of care; and the breach of care done by Peter caused Kathy to suffer a practical anticipatable
damage.
On the other hand, Kathy is not allowed for compensation for breach of care. Peter could not
oversee the risks when he was advising Kathy. Hence, peter based on the law is not liable for
breach of duty. Since Kathy was starting a new business, it would take quite some time to
acquire a good flow of customers. it would be wise if Kathy adopted other marketing techniques
to single out her business from Margot’s enterprise.
Arguments
A duty of care in this case was owned as the plaintiff(Kathy) can proof the existence of a
duty care because Peter is a professional. A professional in any field such as consultants owes
their clients duty of care if they seek their services (Duncan, et al., 2017). In this scenario, peter
breaches his duty of care in regards to the Queensland Civil Liabilities Act s9 by a foreseeable
risk, insignificant risk and situations that a reasonable person in Peters position would have been
cautious.
Conclusion
The breach caused damages to the client. Peter is liable for the damage caused in regards
to QLD Act (s11) if it is necessary for the scope of liability of the Peter to extend harm so caused
(Foley & Christensen, 2016). Can the damages done be linked to Peter advise?

HYPOTHETICAL ILAC QUESTION 3
References
Duncan, W. D., Dixon, W. M., Christensen, S. A., Rivera, R., Window, M., & Partridge, T.
(2017). Property Law Review Issues Paper: Consistency between the Body Corporate and
Community Management Act 1997 and the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980.
Foley, M., & Christensen, M. (2016). Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study
Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).