Business Law: Legal Aspects of Business - Problems and Solutions

This business law assignment delves into various critical legal aspects relevant to businesses. It addresses the impact of the changing legal environment, focusing on customer privacy and company law, referencing cases like Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd and Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited. The assignment further explores negligence, duty of care in sports (Rinaldo v. McGovern), and defenses such as contributory negligence (Revill v Newbery) and comparative negligence (Fitzgerald v Lane). It also examines strict liability, particularly in the context of manufacturing defects, citing Rylands v Fletcher. Finally, it discusses foreseeability in negligence, using Overseas Tankships (U.K.) Limited v The Miller Steamship Co. Pty. Limited and Paris v Stepney Borough Council as examples. The document provides a comprehensive overview of key legal concepts and their practical application in the business world.

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasd
fghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasd
fghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
Business Law
Questions in relation with Legal aspect of business
1/17/2020
Student Credentials

Business Law 1
Question 1:
In the recent times there have been advancements in relation with legal environment of
organizations in the business world. There are factors that have been rendered to recently so
as to make it easier to regulate certain laws or facilitate the business. To a certain extent the
change has been positive as well as negative (Williams, 2017).
Privacy of the customers in general is a huge issue that needs to be tended to while
conducting a business. Recent changes in laws have made it easy for the customers to trust
the organizations, as in case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA
Civ 333, CA it clearly states how necessary it is to prevent the leak of data in the world
around (Thompson, 2013). Another case is in relation with recent changes is, Jetivia SA v
Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) [2015] UKSC 23 which is a company law case of United
Kingdom where the Supreme Court considered, the instructing of attribution and its propriety
to associations and administrators in recognizing hazard (Bloomsbury Professional, 2015).
Question 2:
In order to prove a case of negligence, duty of care has to be established. While in a sporting
event, to prove that the duty of care existed, the only requirement here is the establishment of
a relationship between both the parties, which is the defendant and the plaintiff. On usual
basis, in a legal sports related competition, each participant owns a duty of care towards the
other. Such duty of care is something which is present in order to exercise every kind of care
that is quite reasonable in the said prevailing circumstances so as prevent injury or harm to all
the participants. A case quite similar is the case of In Rinaldo v. McGovern, 78 N.Y.2d 729,
587 N.E.2d 264, 579 N.Y.S.2d 626 (1991) where damage was caused to the defendant but the
court denied any liability of plaintiff as it was not an act of negligence (LexisNexis, 2020).

Business Law 2
When an obligation of care has been set up, it should then be indicated that this obligation has
been broken, considering the prevailing conditions of that specific game. For risk to be
demonstrated, there may not really be criminal reckless dismissal for the injured individual's
security, yet it shall be something more genuine than a negligible blunder of judgment or a
pass of expertise (In Brief, 2019).
Question 3:
The harms might be decreased on the basis of his contributory carelessness where the said
defendant is a subject in tort, or at least where he is co-broadly subject in tort and agreement,
however not where he is obligated distinctly in contract (The Law Commission, 2016). The
case of Revill v Newbery [1996] 2 WLR 239 is an often used case so as to elaborate more
about the concept of contributory negligence (E -Law Resources, 2020).
Another aspect that can be rendered specifically to reduce the consideration that needs to be
paid by the defendant in this case is the Comparative Negligence. In this kind of negligence,
the defendant can easily get a certain percentage of remuneration or compensation for that
matter reduced. One such example of comparative negligence which is quite common and
widely known as Fitzgerald v Lane [1989] 1 AC 328 this case just makes it easier for people
to understand the concept behind comparative negligence (Casemine, 2019).
Question 4:
This scenario is covered under the criteria of strict liability. There are instances when taking
care of almost all the dangerous aspects is not enough and each and every harmful aspect
needs to be rendered to in order to be a product which is safe to use. In the given case, the
manufacturer on his part forgot about a certain threat notification to be denoted on the

Business Law 3
product itself. Here, if any harmful or hazardous instance takes place, which is harmful to
another individual, in this case, the liability for damages shall be of the manufacturer himself.
This rule of strict liability raised from the case of English Law also known as the case of
Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1. As per the facts mentioned in the case and the statements
given in the documents, the plaintiff here owned a mill and for development purposes he
wanted to improve the water supply at this mill. To facilitate that he opted for getting a
reservoir developed nearby. After talking to a certain group of people that consisted of
engineers and as such the reservoir was made (Case Brief, 2019).
While the court disagreed to all the early judgements stating that the defendant here was
liable under the strict liability rule as the reservoir made in this case was for defendant’s use
himself and when it hindered with the plaintiff’s property, defendant was going to be liable
for the same as it was due to the defendant the plaintiff suffered huge losses (E Law
Resources, 2019).
Question 5:
The commitment of care in the tort of negligence is one basic rule according to which, an
individual owes a commitment of care to another if the individual can reasonably be
depended upon to have foreseen that if they didn't toll thee well, the other would persevere
through individual harm or passing. Consistency is moreover appropriate to standard of care
(that is, to the subject of whether a commitment of care has been broken) and to remoteness
of mischief. Remoteness of mischief is every now and again thought of as a piece of
causation (Treasury, 2019).
The cases of Overseas Tankships (U.K.) Limited v The Miller Steamship Co. Pty. Limited and
another (and Cross-appeal Consolidated) (New South Wales) [1966] UKPC 10 as well as the

Business Law 4
one of Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] 1 All ER 42, HL are a few good examples
where the concept of foreseeability can be easily clarified (E Law Resources, 2019). Where
the reasonable person can force the losses that can be incurred or the harm that can be
inflicted on the other person resulting in the damage, here the other party cannot escape from
the liability to pay off another with adequate consideration under this tor of negligence.

Business Law 5
Bibliography
Bloomsbury Professional, 2015. The latest UK company law developments. [Online]
Available at: https://law.bloomsburyprofessional.com/blog/the-latest-uk-company-law-
developments [Accessed 17 January 2020].
Case Brief, 2019. Rylands v. Fletcher. [Online] Available at:
https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-dobbs/the-development-of-
common-law-strict-liability/rylands-v-fletcher/ [Accessed 17 January 2020].
Casemine, 2019. Fitzgerald v Lane. [Online] Available at:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8da60d03e7f57ece800 [Accessed 17 January
2020].
E Law Resources, 2019. Rylands v Fletcher. [Online] Available at: http://e-
lawresources.co.uk/Rylands-v-Fletcher.php [Accessed 17 January 2020].
E Law Resources, 2019. Wagon Mound No.2 [1967]. [Online] Available at: http://www.e-
lawresources.co.uk/The-Wagon-Mound-No-2.php [Accessed 17 January 2020].
E -Law Resources, 2020. Revill v Newbery [1996] 2 WLR 239 Court of Appeal. [Online]
Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Revill-v-Newbery.php [Accessed 17 January
2020].
In Brief, 2019. Negligence and Sport. [Online] Available at:
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/sports-law/negligence-and-sport/ [Accessed 17 Janauary 2020].
LexisNexis, 2020. Rinaldo v. McGovern - 78 N.Y.2d 729, 579 N.Y.S.2d 626, 587 N.E.2d 264
(1991). [Online] Available at: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-
rinaldo-v-mcgovern [Accessed 17 January 2020].

Business Law 6
The Law Commission, 2016. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AS A DEFENCE IN
CONTRACT. [Online] Available at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2016/02/LC.-
219-CONTRIBUTORY-NEGLIGENCE-AS-A-DEFENCE-IN-CONTRACT.pdf [Accessed
17 January 2020].
Thompson, K., 2013. UK Court of Appeal limits compensation owed by businesses which
breach privacy laws. [Online] Available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?
g=e9d1dd4a-f698-4d92-a009-f28423e753da [Accessed 17 January 2020].
Treasury, 2019. Foreseeability, Standard of Care, Causation. [Online] Available at:
https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/R2002-001_Foreseeability.pdf [Accessed
17 January 2020].
Williams, B., 2017. How Does the Law Affect Businesses? [Online] Available at:
https://yourstory.com/mystory/6d7c3b1641-how-does-the-law-affect-businesses- [Accessed
16 Janauary 2020].