HA2022 Business Law Report: Contract and Tort Law Analysis

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of two case problems in business law, addressing issues related to contract law and torts. The first part examines a contract law issue, determining whether Grant is obligated to pay $400 based on the principles of offer, acceptance, and the postal rule, referencing the cases of Partridge v Critenden and Adams v Lindsell. The second part delves into a tort law issue, evaluating whether Frank can sue a football club and local council for negligence, considering the duty of care, breach of duty, and the defense of volenti non fit injuria, referencing the case of Langham v Connell Point Rovers Soccer Club. The report applies the IRAC method, providing a structured approach to legal problem-solving, and concludes with the application of relevant legal principles to the specific facts of each case, offering clear and concise answers to the issues presented. The report also includes a list of references used to support the analysis.

Business Law
HA2022

Part A
Issue
 The issue of the case is to check whether Grant
can refuse to pay $400 or not.

Rules
 To form a valid contract, certain elements need to
be there which are essential of contract.
 These elements includes offer, acceptance,
capacity, consideration and intention of parties to
create legal relations.
 in the case titled Partridge v Critenden (1968) 2
All ER 425 it was given that an advertisement
should be considered as n invitation to treat rather
than an offer (MacIntyre, 2018).

Rules
 Making of consent is not enough but the same
must be communicated also.
 In those cases where parties adopt the postal rule
of communication, then rules related to acceptance
are different.
 In such cases, a consent becomes effective at the
moment when offeree drop the consent letter to the
mailbox as decided in the case of Adams v Lindsell
(1818) 106 ER 250

Application
 Applying the decision of Partridge v Critenden, the
advertisement placed by insurance company was as an
invitation to treat not the offer.
 Grant made an offer where he applied for 100 shares
of the subjective company.
 The company accepted the offer made by Grant and
posted the allotment letter through the mail.
 Applying the provisions of Adams v Lindsell,
acceptance, in this case, has completed at the very
moment when the insurance company posted the
allotment letter to a mailbox.

Conclusion
 Conclusively this is to state that a valid contract
existed between the parties. Company has chosen
a postal mode of communication and in this
manner; acceptance was validly communicated to
Grant.
 Now, Grant cannot refuse to pay $400, in against
of call on share because it is his obligation to do
under a contract made with the insurance
company.

Part B
Issue
 The issue of the case is to check whether Frank
can sue the football club or local council?
 Whether such council or club can use any defense
and if yes then whether they will be successful?

Rules
 Negligence is one of the kinds of Tort. It is a situation
where a person who owes a duty of care to other
breaches the same.
 To amount to a successful claim of negligence, a duty
of care, breach of the same, loss to claimant because
of such negligence are required to be there.
 In the case of Langham v Connell Point Rovers
Soccer Club [2005] NSWCA 461,
occupiers/organizers held liable for negligence and
decided that these parties owe a duty of care to
Spectators.

Rules
 Under negligence, many defenses are there that
can be claimed by defenses, Volenti nonfit injuria
is one of them.
 This defense can be used in those situations where
claimant accepts the risk of even being aware of
the same.
 In such a situation, defendant may raise the claim
of Volenti non fit injuria/ voluntary assumption of
risk and cannot be held liable to pay damages.

Application
 The football club and council owed a duty of care. They
were required to behave in a responsible manner in
respect to the Spectators of the match as establish in the
case of Langham v Connell Point Rovers Soccer Club,
but failed to do so.
 Arm of Frank got break due to this negligence and all
the essentials of negligence establish in such a case.
 This is to state that defense of volenti nonfit injuria can
be applied here since it is mentioned that Frank used to
attend the match on the same ground regularly and Even
being aware of this he chosen to sit there

Conclusion
 Frank can sue the club and council for the
negligence conducted by them. They can ask
defense of voluntary assumption of risk and they
would succeed in the same.
 In this manner, they will not be liable to pay any
damages.

References
 Adams v Lindsell (1818) 106 ER 250
 Langham v Connell Point Rovers Soccer Club
[2005] NSWCA 461
 MacIntyre, E. (2018) Business Law. UK: Pearson
UK.
 Partridge v Critenden (1968) 2 All ER 425