Griffith Business School 2105AFE Business Law Assignment - Trimester 1

This document provides a comprehensive solution to a Business Law assignment, addressing problem-solving questions related to tort law. The assignment covers key concepts such as negligence, vicarious liability, and duty of care, as well as relevant legislation including the Civil Liability Act 2003 and the Australian Consumer Law. The solution analyzes three distinct scenarios, applying the relevant laws and legal principles to determine the outcomes. The first scenario examines whether a business owner can claim damages due to a financial advisor's incorrect advice, the second addresses the liability of a council for injuries sustained at a beach, and the third assesses a chef's liability for harm caused by food ingredients. Each answer includes an application of the law to the facts and a conclusion. This solution is designed to assist students in understanding and applying legal principles to real-world situations.

Running head- BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
1.

1Business Law
Answer to 1
Issues
The primary issue that is observed in the problem includes the following:
 Will Kathy be entitled to claim damages for the loss in business due
to Peter’s advice?
Law
The laws that are applicable in the given scenario includes the following:
1. Section 20 of the Civil Liability Act, 2003:
This section of the act defines the term professional as any person
who professes a particular profession or possesses any kind of
expertise over that subject.
2. Section 22 of the Civil liability act, 2003:
This part of the legislation defines the standard of care that the
professional shall ensure that it will make them free from any kind
of liability.
3. Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law:
According to this legislation any professional whose profession
relates to advising other people, in cases where that professional
has provided any kind of wrong or misleading statement that has
caused the damage to the other person shall be liable due to the
misleading or the wrong statement.
4. Section 60 of Australian Consumer Law:
It obligates that the services provided to the consumers shall be
with adequate skill and due care. It includes any kind of services
that the consumer opt from the professional. In case of failure to
provide the services with due care and skill the consumer will have
a right in order to claim for the damages or the injury caused to
them for the service provided by the professional.
5. Vicarious Liability:
Under this principle, a person may be liable for the damages caused
to another person without the personal fault upon the grounds that
the person was in control of the situation of the other person and
was acting in due course of the employment.
Application

2Business Law
By the application of the laws as mentioned above in the given
scenario, Kathy will be entitled to claim the damages from Peter. He was a
legal professional whose work is to provide financial advice. So for that,
Kathy was dependent upon his services for the decision to establish the
new shop and expand the business. It was Peter’s duty to provide such
services with adequate skills and due care. Following the facts of the case,
it is evident that the loss suffered by Kathy was due to the advice of Peter.
Due to Peters’s misstatement and lack of adequate skill, she suffered the
loss. Peter was negligent in providing adequate service to Kathy. It was his
advice for which Kathy established a new business resulting in more loss
in business. He was vicariously liable for the negligent act
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is stated that following the circumstances of the
case Kathy will be eligible to claim for the damages under Sec 18 and 60
of ACL and Peter shall be liable under Sec 20 and 22 of CLA for the wrong
and misleading statement.

3Business Law
Answer to 2
Application
According to Part 1, Division 3, Sec-15 and Sec- 19 of the Civil
Liability Act,2003 any person shall not be held liable for the injury caused
to other for a risk that is obvious or due to certain dangerous recreation.
By the application of this legislation, Forestdale Shire Council shall not be
responsible for the injury that Harry suffered as the injury was due to their
fault as it was evident that the lonely beach that had no patrolling may
cause certain risk. They own responsibility for themselves as it consisted
of obvious risk, and it was dangerous as Harry was not even a good
swimmer.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is stated that Forestdale Shire Council does not own
a duty of care towards Harry as the injury was personal injury due to the
obvious risks and recreation that was dangerous.
Answer to 3
Application
According to Part 1, Div 1, Sec 9, any person who has not followed
the general principles of the general standard of care shall be liable for
the breach. Under section 22(5), any professional cannot be unbound from
his liability in the case where he owns a duty of care to warn about the
risk or warned about the risk. In this case, Jhonny was the owner and also
the chef of the pizza store, which makes him and duty to look after the
ingredients he used in the food. So it was his breach of duty or negligence
for which Ted suffered the harm.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is stated that the harm suffered by Ted was due to
the breach of duty of Jonny to take proper care of the items that he used
in the food that in turn caused damage to Ted.

4Business Law
Reference
Sec 22(5, Civil Liability Act,2003
Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law
Section 60 of Australian Consumer Law
Sec-15 and Sec- 19, Civil Liability Act,2003
Sec 9, Civil Liability Act,2003
Section 20, Civil Liability Act, 2003