Business Law Report: Analysis of Chiclets Plc and Joe's Injury Cases

This business law report delves into two primary scenarios: the contractual dispute of Chiclets Plc with its delivery company, and the injury sustained by an employee, Joe, due to negligence. The first part of the report analyzes the legality of the contract terms, specifically addressing the exclusion clause and its implications under common law and statutory law, including the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) 1977, and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. It examines how the exclusion clause impacts Chiclets Plc's ability to claim compensation for losses incurred due to the delivery company's system failure. The second part of the report addresses Joe's injury, focusing on the law of torts and negligence. It evaluates the line manager's duty of care and breach of duty, referencing the case of Donoghue v Stevenson to illustrate the principles of negligence. The report considers the elements of duty of care and breach of duty in the context of Joe's injury, and the legal responsibilities of the company and its management. The report concludes by suggesting that the cases should be settled mutually, as both parties are equally liable for the issues that arise with the company.

Business Law

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
TASK 1............................................................................................................................................1
Question 1 - Advising Chiclets Plc. On the legality in the terms of contract.............................1
Question 2 - Advising Joe regarding the claim for his injury.....................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
Business law is the body of law which governs the business and commerce transactions.
Law relates to many purposes and functions moving in the society and business internal matters.
They relate to civil and criminal matters which provide satisfaction to employees to work
smoothly in the organisation. Present report is based on the Chiclets plc. (CP) who is running a
chain of restaurants over 50 years for delivering food to their customers.
Report will include the unfair contract term made by the DL company who delivers food
of Chiclets plc as the for not delivering the food for 10 days due to break down of system which
results in suffering huge losses to chiclets plc. Further it includes the case of DL lorry driver
employ who under the pressure of line manager, overload the items in the lorry through which he
suffers serious back injury.
TASK 1
Question 1 - Advising Chiclets Plc. On the legality in the terms of contract
Common Law:
Usually such laws which are already in existence or are written and through that judges
refers to give the fair decision. It refers to such laws which are already written in constitution and
judges can refer the decision from that cases and provide a valid judgement.
Identifying Parties:
Chiclets Plc (CP) running its business of restaurant chain for over 50 years. Last February
they decided to change their delivery company. They made an agreement with the DL Ltd to
supply food to the customers. Some months later DL computer system are broken down which
result in stoppage of delivery for 10 days.
Exclusion clause:
This case represents that it restricts the rights of the liability of the person to enter into
some specific contract with the other person (Adams, 2010). They have to work within the
available condition.
States of parties: The case is between the Chiclets Plc and The DL Ltd. Chiclets is running
business from 50 years and DL Ltd is also speciality is delivering food online. They both enter
into the contract regarding the delivering of food from their restaurant.
Facts:
1

The major facts is that CP had to close 200 restaurants out of 900 due to defect in system
for ordering services. Before the CP claims DL sent a final clause in the agreement written that
DL is not liable for any delay due to howsoever reasons.
Incorporation:
Whether the clause is the part of the contract. If it was mentioned in the document and
signed by the claimant then he can't claim for that. In the process of incorporation it includes
three stages Firstly the notice of the term or the agreement should be given during the term of the
contract. Secondly the term or clause is mentioned in the agreement and lastly it's the duties of
the parties to specify all the clauses and before signing it should be authorised to read it properly
(Adams, 2010). In the case of CP they have signed the agreement before reading all the clause
and after that they can't claim the DL to compensate for the losses they incurred.
Construction:
After the incorporation is done, the agreement matter is sorted construction finalises the
complete legal structure which results in contract law, employment law and commercial law. The
construction covered the complete clauses in the contract. It also analyses the breach committed
in the contract and if they are signed what are the priorities that to be changed. It covers the
express as well as implied terms. The breach are covered in the contract in the Exclusion clause
as the parties are not intended to known that breach are covered in the contract which they are
following with loyalty.
In such case CP had signed the agreement and its clearly mentioned in that if there is any
delay in delivery DL company is not liable for any compensation under the common law.
But under the Statue law it results to unfair contract act. Statue law means such matters which is
based on research on the matters and conduct a deep study and after that judgements are
disclosed in the rules of law.
As per the case of White v John Warwick &Co. the case states that Mr. tom white
(plaintiff) is a newspaper agent and also a tobacconist which made an agreement with the John
Warwick (Defendant) regrading the borrowing of tricycle. During the time of providing services
he met with an accident and injured in his Knee occurs. Mr white demand for the compensation
by his company disagree to pay as his personal mistake. This case is related to construction as it
includes all the major points covered under this Act. As contract law, employment law and
commercial activity are described under the Act.
2

Unfair contract terms Act (UCTA), 1977:
In this act it deals between the parties on the basis of fraud committed or any rules which
are not visible to any parties. As UCTA does not apply on all contact, they apply only on specific
contract which is based on related to business matters or government norms. Both the companies
also apply Schedule 2 of UCTA to solve their disputes by mutually agree to bargain the prices as
losses suffer by both the parties (Adams, 2010). This clause applies only to the exclusion terms
under the statue law so that clause are minutely examined and written not very specific which
reflects the cases at the time of dispute.
Breach of contract:
According to Section 11 of UCTA CP suffer other damages such as closing of 200
restaurants which affects the reputation and delivery services of the company. Section 11 applies
in that case when company suffers any type of damages but not such damages which causes
harm to their body or death of the person. It mostly occurs on that cases which causes damages
to company goodwill (Adams, 2010).
Supply of goods and services Act, 1982:
Under this Act supplier is responsible to provide proper and timely services to the
workman. So that their work is not affected with any delay in services. As per this case due to
DL ltd, CP company suffer huge losses. In this Act, a relevant contract is made regarding the
transfer of goods and services within reasonable time.
Conclusion:
From the above case is can be analysed that Chiclets plc settle their issues mutually as
both the parties are equally liable for the issue that happens with the company. Chiclets plc didn't
read the agreement properly and signed the contract which is the biggest issue, as contract are
properly readied and analysed than only it comes into existence and secondly DL is liable as if
the system is not properly operating he uses some other technique to deliver the products as it is
their responsibility to deliver the products to the customers and if they didn't reach timely they
can also file complain against that company in case of fraud committed.
Question 2 - Advising Joe regarding the claim for his injury.
This case states that Joe is the packer in DL who delivers food to the customers
throughout the UK. DL advice the packers that loading items are under the certain weight and
they didn't allow any packers to carry over a certain weight without a fork lift truck. Joe under
3

the pressure of the line manager over loaded the lorry which result in causing serious back
injury.
This case reflects the case of Law of torts and negligence. Torts of Negligence states
such wrongful act committed by some person which neglects his responsibility to take care of
their employees. This case occurs in case of foreseeable risk associated at any time. In English
system such law states when any act committed in respect of breach in duty.
In this case an individual and other single person causes any harm or injury from other
person when they are performing their duty. This gives right to the injured person to sue him for
the loss incurred. As the difference between torts and negligence is that tort's comes in existence
when someone committed the act for some specific purpose while the negligence occurs when
the person is not careful enough while doing some work on the duty. But to combine together it
states that the crime committed intensionally. Similarly, in case of DL the line manager knows
that while overloading the lorry it results to cause serious injury to the driver.
Mostly jurisdiction decide the matters of Law of torts on the basis of following elements:
 Duty of Care: The liability of the defendant is to take care of their plaintiff and the
employees working in the organisation. This helps the senior to maintain enthusiasm
among the workers regarding the health and safety norms (Adams, 2010). If the managers
in the company manages the rights and duties of their employees regarding their working
structure, time managed for single work and carry the id proof while delivering the
service. Theses policies help the company to take care of their employees and also save
them, if they are injured or cause any damages under employment Act.
In the case of DL delivery service, the line manager have to take care of their
drivers and also the situation which is against the over loading weights. As weights are general
scenario, Joe who had to carry that overload weight and deliver the services have to tackle all the
weights which affects the body and also the company make the policies according to the safety
of the workers only. They know that packers can't carry so much load.
To justify the point of duty of care, Donoghue V Stevenson is the best case to represent
the duty of defendant. This cases states that Mrs Donoghue drinking ginger beer in a cafe in
Paisley, Scotland. The beer contains a dead snail in the bottle. By drinking that bee, Donoghue
fell ill. The result is that she file a case against Mr Stevenson, who is the manufacturer of that
beer. The house of Lords felt that it is the duty of manufacturer to supply the products with
4

quality which he committed breach to the duty. The liability of torts implemented when they
cause harm directly or indirectly to the plaintiff and this law proves in this case. Thus, as per
Lord Atkin, Mr Stevenson is liable to compensate Donoghue and his crime is proved under three
circumstances. Firstly It results to reasonable forseeability of harm. Secondly the defendant had
to maintain the relationship with the plaintiff proximately and lastly they impose fair and
reasonable liability on the defendant for his careless attitude towards the plaintiff.
 Breach of duty: It stays that once the duty is assigned by the defendant to the plaintiff
they have to perform it without any negligence. If plaintiff knew that it result in breach or
harm to contract than also they have to follow the orders. Government made certain
norms regarding the breach of duty and this is to be applied for both plaintiff and
defendant (Adams, 2010). For defendant they have to be loyal with the workers and have
to clarify all the matters which can be happen in the company also on the other hand
plaintiff honesty perform the duty and also be presented on duty during its allotted
working shifts.
This contract is mainly based on employment Act as under this act every workers
are eligible to perform the task according to company norms and polices and if they commit any
breach in terms of fraud, misconduct or misbehaviour with the senior managers, violates the
company policies, not presented at duty without informing or at allotted time. On such cases
employment act are applicable and they are charged under serious punishment which sometimes
result to imprisonment as well.
In the case of DL delivery service, they make the polices that no packers carry the
weight items which are over the burden to the lorry. But the line manager force Joe to carry
certain more number of boxes which is against the DL polices. This result in breach of condition
by going against the company norms.
Nettleship V Weston case specifies the point of breach of duty. This case states that Mr.
Nettleship (plaintiff) agrees to teach Mr. Weston (Defendant) to drive the car of her husband.
While driving Nettleship ask about the insurance policy of the car and during on lesson they met
with an accident. This causes injury to the plaintiff which result him to compensate the amount
for the loss suffered. Defendant argued that plaintiff was very well known about the lack of
driving skills of defendant and she is not experienced in handing the motor vehicles issues. She
also complains against the result of committing breach in duty without any negligent. The
5

judgement made by the court is that instructor is also responsible for the damages incurred as he
is also partially controlling the car. He is only responsible for half of the damages which is due to
contributory negligence.
 Causation: In law of torts damages occurred are happened either by way of physically
damage, mentally or cause any harm to body internally. This happens whether by
intensionally committed for purpose or happens unknowingly. Whatever the types of
damages maybe it may result to crime and punished under the legal jurisdiction.
Government is strict regarding the employment norms and after it cause any serious
effect it may result to compensation to the plaintiff or also charge high fine to the
companies which targets them, not to commit such crime intentionally (Adams, 2010). It
enables them to take care of their employees and do not keep their life at risk
intentionally if they know that it commit serious injury to them.
In the case of DL delivery service, line manager intentionally puts Joe life in
danger by uploading more weights of boxes in lorry and this causes serious back pain to Joe. Joe
also put their life in danger while driving the over weighted lorry. This result in causing
intentional damages in the law of torts under DL Ltd.
Causation can be discussed under the Smith V Leech Brain & Co Ltd. Smith (Plaintiff)
duty in the Leech brain & Co Ltd (defendant) is that they have carried a lift metal items with the
help of crane and put them into a tank of molten zinc. While doing such procedure some object
came out from the tank and hit his lips which result in causing burn and causes death the that
particle. This results in causing damages to the plaintiff life and this loss is foreseeable in respect
to law of torts.
Injury related to crime committed:
DL ltd. Can raise defence against the Joe for claiming regarding Obvious Risk, As DL
can raise an issue against the plaintiff that he can complain against the line mangers for forcing
him to commit such crime which is against the polices or the mangers for forcing him to do so
which he can't fight against such order. The second defence which DL can raise is against the
Self defence (Adams, 2010). As if Joe knew that anything can be happened to lorry, then at the
time of accident he can firstly handle his life safely and then think about the lorry. DL Ltd.
blames Joe to carry the precaution while driving the lorry and felt that it also Joe mistakes of not
taking the proper care at the duty.
6

Conclusion
From the above case it can be concluded that DL Ltd. is liable to pay compensation to Joe for
forcing doing such work which already predicts to cause serious damage to him. Joe can also
claim the loss which he causes while delivering the boxes. The court also decides the factors
which DL presents and then only compensation are raised and fine are allotted.
CONCLUSION
From the above study it can be concluded that business law serves many actions, rules
and functions in the business or in society of UK. They help the business to carry certain policies
regarding the employees of the company and help the employees to fight against such rules in
case of breach committed. Business law is based on common law and statue law. Common law
states with various incorporation and construction which represents the exclusion clause.
Chiclets plc enters into an unfair contract terms act with the Deltra delivery Ltd. and they both
mutually settle their disputes under Schedule 2 of the Act. It also concluded that the line manager
of DL Ltd. had forcefully overloaded the boxes knowing that this will damage the Joe life. Joe
matter is taken under the Law of torts and the DL is liable to compensate for the loss incurred
and Joe is also covered under the Employment Act.
7

REFERENCES
Book
Adams, A., 2010. Law for Business Students. 6th edition. Pearson Education Ltd.
8