Case Study on Misrepresentation, Negligence & Vicarious Liability

This case study examines two distinct legal issues. The first part considers whether John Gravatt can sue Sunny bank Pty Ltd for misrepresentation regarding the unapproved footpath tables and chairs. It concludes that Sunny bank's silence does not constitute misrepresentation. The second part addresses whether Jonas's father can sue Rapid Couriers under vicarious liability and Jonas under negligence for an accident causing the father's loss of sight. It determines that Rapid Couriers is vicariously liable for Jonas's actions within his employment and that Jonas was negligent due to a breach of duty of care.

Part A
Issues
• Whether John Gravatt can sue Sunny bank Pty
Ltd for misrepresentation?
• What are the remedies that are available to
John Gravatt against Sunny bank Pty Ltd for
misrepresentation?

Law
• A contract exist when there is offer, acceptance,
consideration, intention, capacity.
• A contract is not enforceable when suffered from
misrepresentation.
• Misrepresentation occurs when a false statement
is made induing the other party to make
contract.
• Silence is not considered to be misrepresentation
unless specifically asked.

Application and conclusion
• John Gravatt purchased a restaurant from Sunny bank
Pty Ltd.
• Bank is aware that the tables and chairs on the
footpath hadn’t been approved by the local council.
• By not disclosing the facts it is not an act of
misrepresentation.
• Thus, there is no representation that was made which
is positive, incorrect and false. So, Gravatt has suffered
loss not on account of misrepresentation that is caused
by Sunny bank Pty Ltd.

Part B
Issues and Law
• Whether the father of Jonas could sue Rapid Couriers
under the law of vicarious Liabilities?
• Can the father of Jonas sue Jones under the law of
negligence?
• Law of Vicarious liability - Any liability incurred by an
employee within his course if employment will make
the employer liable.
• Negligence – non-compliance of duty of care by
defendant causing harm to plaintiff makes a defendant
negligent.

Application of law
Issue 1
• The acts that are carried out by Jonas was the acts that are
authorized to him by Rapid Couriers.
• The loss caused to the father should not be imposed on Jonas
but the liability will shift upon Rapid Couriers under the law
of vicarious liability.
Issue 2
• There is proximate relationship and the father is reasonably
foreseeable;
• Jonas carried on the acts not as per the level of care that is
expected resulting in his father lost sight.