HA2022: Business Law Assignment Report on Negligence and Contracts

This report analyzes two case problems from a Business Law course (HA2022), addressing principles of contract law and negligence. The first question examines the formation of a contract between Greta and Sam, focusing on the elements of offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations, using cases like Harvey v Facey and Hyde v Wrench. It concludes that no contract was formed due to a counteroffer. The second question delves into negligence, specifically addressing whether Jonas can be held liable for running over his father while employed as a courier. It explores the elements of a negligence claim, including duty of care (applying the Caparo Industries test), breach of duty, causation, and damages, as well as the concept of vicarious liability. The report concludes that a duty of care existed and potential liability for Jonas, and discusses the possibility of defenses like contributory negligence. The analysis is structured using the IRAC method, providing a clear and organized examination of the legal issues and their application to the given facts.

Business law
Running Head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT 0
1 / 2 3 / 2 0 2 0
Student’s Name
HA2022

“HA2022” 1
Contents
Question 1...................................................................................................................................2
Issue 2
Rules 2
Application 3
Conclusion 3
References..................................................................................................................................4
Question 2...................................................................................................................................5
Issue 5
Rules 5
Application 6
Conclusion 6
References..................................................................................................................................7

“HA2022” 2
Question 1
Issue
Whether a contract existed between Greta and Sam?
Rules
For every valid contract, certain elements are needed to exist. If anyone or more elements
remain missing in dealing then an enforceable contract cannot be developed between the
parties. These elements are also known as the essentials of the contract. The very first
essential is an offer, which is a proposal from one party to another. In this proposal, a party
promise to do some act or not doing the same in exchange for another promise. The maker of
such a proposal is known as the offeror and the receiver is known as offeree. For a valid offer,
it is necessary that the same must contain an intention of the offeror to be bind as decided in
the case of Harvey v Facey [1893] UKPC 1. In addition to this, all the terms of the offer must
be clear and determined (Judge, 2009). Many of the times, people consider an invitation to
treat, as offer whereas in actual both terms has different meanings and applications. An
invitation to treat is simply a call for offers and needs not to exist in each case. Nevertheless
in those cases where an invitation to treat exist it comes before an offer. In reply to such an
invitation, other people make an offer that further needs to get consent. Some of the
communications have been identified as an invitation to treat in the past cases. In the
decision of one of such case named Partridge v Critenden (1968) 2 All ER 425, it was
provided that advertisements generally constitutes an invitation to treat rather than an offer
(Taylor and Taylor, 2015).
Another element, which is required under an enforceable contract, is acceptance. Similar to
offer, rules related to valid acceptance are also defined under the common law of contract.
The first rule states that acceptance must be appropriately communicated to the offeror.
Further, the acceptance is required to be given for similar terms as proposed under an offer. If
the offeree does not provide his/her absolute, consent or accept the offer by making some
changes in the original terms proposed in the offer then such consent does not treat as valid
consent. Such communication is known as a counteroffer where offeree responds to an offer
by creating another offer on different terms. In the case of Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132,
it was given that a counteroffer cancels all the previous offers (Yule and Darwent, 2013). After
the insertion of a counteroffer, the other party has to decide whether to accept or reject the
subjective offer. Lastly, valid consent is a certain one. In other words, to state that out of
consent, it must be possible to decide what the parties have consented to.
Consideration is another important element that must mention in an offer in a clear manner.
Anything is allowed to be a valid consideration under contract law that has some values in the
opinion of the law. As given in the case of Chappell v Nestle [1960] AC 87, the adequacy of
the consideration does not take any matter as its sufficiency does (Burrows, 2018). A further
intention of the parties is another essential of a valid contract according to which all the
parties of the contract must intend to bind each other legally. Checking the presence or
absence of such intention is a difficult thing to do hence the decision of such cases may be
used for this purpose where courts have provided some grounds to determine the presence of
intention of parties. Esso Petroleum v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1976] 1 WLR 1 is
one of such cases where the court has provided that the agreements made in commercial
context give an assumption of the existence of intention of parties to develop legal relations.

“HA2022” 3
Application
In the case given hereby, Greta made communication in the form of an advertisement where
she presented her will to sell the car. This communication cannot be considered as a valid
offer as the same did not contain a certain value of consideration and the terms of the offer in
the context of sale price were unclear. In addition to this, the communication was made in the
form of advertisement hence applying the provisions of Partridge v Critenden, the same
should be considered as an invitation to treat. Even on the inquiry made by Sam, Greta did
not state any fix consideration and guessed the price nearly a couple of thousand dollars. In
the absence of certain consideration, this communication made by her was also not a valid
offer.
Sam made the first valid offer of the case where the same proposed to buy Greta's car in the
exchange of $2000. This offer seems to be a valid one as all the terms were clearly
mentioned. Further, the consideration was also valid as the same was sufficient and valuable
in the opinion of the law. In addition to this, as the offer was presented in a commercial
context hence applying Esso Petroleum v Commissioners of Customs & Excise, the same
also seems to bind Sam. For the making of a contract, this offer was required to be accepted
by the offeree i.e. by Greta. In reply to this offer, she reconfirmed the price at $2500. This did
not consent but a counteroffer where Greta made amendments to the original terms of the
offer made by Sam. Applying the provisions of Hyde v Wrench, this counter offer canceled all
the previous offer and was now required to be accepted by Sam.
Conclusion
Up to the last communication made by Greta, no contract was developed between the parties
as a valid consent was missing to the offer made by Sam.

“HA2022” 4
References
Burrows, A., (2018) A Casebook on Contract. UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Chappell v Nestle [1960] AC 87,
Esso Petroleum v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1976] 1 WLR 1
Harvey v Facey [1893] UKPC 1
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132
Judge, S. (2009) Business Law. UK: Macmillan Education UK.
Partridge v Critenden (1968) 2 All ER 425
Taylor and Taylor, (2015) Contract Law Directions. UK: Oxford University Press.
Yule, I., and Darwent, P. (2013) AQA Law A2 Student Unit Guide: Unit 3 New Edition:
Criminal Law (Offences Against the Person) and Contract Law ePub. UK: Hachette UK.

“HA2022” 5
Question 2
Issue
Whether Jonas may held liable for the negligence? Is there any defense available to him?
Rules
In general, life, people do wrongs to each other where some of them are intentional and some
are unintentional. These wrongs are considered as Tort and are subject to the provisions of
Tort Law. One of the kinds of wrong is negligence, which falls under the category of
unintentional torts. Negligence refers to a situation where a person breaches the duty of care
owed by him/her. To make an action successful under negligence, some requirements need
to satisfy which are given hereunder:-
Duty of care: - This is the first and most basic requirement of a negligence claim. The
defendant must have a duty of care to the claimant. To check the presence of such duty,
some tests have been developed in past cases. One such case has given in the case of
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2. A three-step test was given in this case,
following that the presence or absence of duty of care can be checked (Kelly, Hammer and
Hendy, 2017). The first step of the test focuses on the mutual relationship between parties.
According to the same, the defendant must share a proximate/neighborhood relationship with
the claimant. Tort law has identified some relationship that falls in the category of proximate
relations. These include the relationship of student teacher, parents-children, doctor-patient,
and client- solicitors. Further to check the existence of a proximate relationship in other cases,
the test is given in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson can be used. According to the decision
given in this case, a person is considered the neighbor of others where such other person is
likely to be affected directly from one's action.
The second requirement states that the damage that happened to the claimant must be
foreseeable. Here the factor of foreseeability states that the damage must be likely to happen
in the opinion of a reasonable person. The third and last requirement given in the case states
that it must be reasonable and fair to held the defendant liable under a case. Sometimes, the
defendant is a minor or mentally incapable person and therefore it does not seem just to
make that person liable for negligence under the law.
Breach of duty: - The other condition states that there must be a breach of duty of care by the
defendant that he/she owed to the claimant. Breach of duty refers to the failure of the
defendant to pursue the actions with the duty of care while dealing with others (Daller, 2018).
Damages: - This is another important requirement for a claim of negligence, according to that
the claimant must be suffer from some kind of loss due to the actions of the defendant. In
other words, this can be stated that if the claimant does not suffer from any loss then he/she
cannot initiate any claim for negligence. Damage can come in any form such as monetary
loss, physical injury, or psychiatric injury (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2019).
The remoteness of damages: - This is the last requirement for a successful negligence claim.
According to the same, the reason behind the loss/damage that happened to a claimant must
be the conduct of the defendant. If the claimant suffers from some kind of loss but the reason
for the same is not the negligence of the defendant then the claimant cannot initiate the action
for negligence under Tort Law.
If all the above-mentioned requirements are satisfied then the court may held the defendant
liable for the negligence. A person held liable for the negligence conducted by him/her but

“HA2022” 6
there is also an exception of this rule where a person may held personally liable for the
negligence of others. The exception is known as the rule of vicarious liability according to that
an employer may be held responsible for the negligence of the employees conducted in the
course of employment.
Under Tort Law, some defenses are mentioned where the defendant may escape his/her
liability. Contributory negligence is one of such defense. Under this defense, the liability of the
defendant reduces if the defendant becomes successful to prove that the claimant also
contributed to the negligence.
Application
In the case given hereby, Jonas was employed as a courier by Rapid couriers. His father was
also employed with the same company. The issue in the provided case started when Jonas
lost sight of his father and accidentally ran over him. To check the presence of a valid
negligence claim, the requirements of the same needs to be checked. Firstly, a duty of care
existed between the parties as applying the three-stage test given in the Caparo case. As
given in the rule section above, the relationship between parents and child falls under the
category of proximate relation. Further, the risk was foreseeable to Jonas. Being a reasonable
person one might have an idea about the likelihood of an accident in case of sight loss.
Lastly, it does seem just and fair to held Jonas liable under the law hence a duty of care was
there on the part of Jonas that he owed to his father. Secondly, as facts of the case are not
clear it is to assume that Jonas breached this duty as he failed to behave with care while
driving. It is assuming here that he negligently lost sight of his father. He was required to act
as a reasonable person where the same failed to do so. Further, the third condition of the
negligence also satisfied here as Jonas's father suffered from a loss as he appears to be
injured by this accident. To check the forth requirement this is to state that a direct
relationship between injury happened to Jonas's father and negligence of Jonas was there. In
this manner, all the requirements of a successful negligence claim are satisfied here.
In the given case, provisions of vicarious liability shall also be applicable as Jonas was
working in the capacity of an employee of Rapid Couriers at the time of the happening of the
accident. With the given fact, no defense seems to be available for Jonas. Nevertheless, to
take the defense of contributory negligence to reduce the liability, Jonas would have to satisfy
the court that his father also contributed to the accident. But if he fails to do so, Jonas shall be
held liable for the negligence.
Conclusion
Jonas is liable for negligence conducted to his father and has to pay damages accordingly.
Further, in the capacity of the employer, Rapid Curriers is also liable for Jonas's conduct by
the virtue of vicarious liability provisions.

“HA2022” 7
References
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2
Daller. (2018) Product Liability Desk Reference: A Fifty-State Compendium, 2019 Edition (IL).
USA: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
E-lawresources.co.uk. (2019) Tort Law. [online] Available from:
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Tort-law.php [Accessed on 24/01/2020]
Kelly, D., Hammer, R., and Hendy, J. (2017) Business Law. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Partridge v Critenden (1968) 2 All ER 425