Contract Law: Analysis of Negligence in Shoe Repair Contract Case

This case study analyzes a contract law scenario involving a shoe repairer, Grace, and her customer, Kelly. Kelly provided shoes for repair, signed a receipt without reading a clause regarding negligence, and later discovered the shoes were damaged. The assignment explores the legal principles of contract law, specifically focusing on the duty of care, breach of contract, and negligence. It references Australian Contract Law, relevant case law such as Astley & Ors V Austrust Limited, and the concept of implied contractual duties. The analysis considers whether Kelly can claim damages despite signing the receipt, concluding that, while the receipt might limit her claim, the implied duty of care established in cases like Astley v Austrust could still provide grounds for a claim. The document also considers the impact of contributory negligence and apportionment legislation.

CONTRACT LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................2
ISSUE..............................................................................................................................................1
RULES.............................................................................................................................................1
APPLICATION...............................................................................................................................1
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................2
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................3

ISSUE
In the present case Grace is shoe repairer to whom Kelly has provided the shoes for
repair. She signed the receipt without reading the clause contained for negligence. When Kelly
arrived for receiving the shoes, Grace replied that the shoes have been damaged. Kelly wants to
know whether she could claim damages for the damage to shoes under the negligence of duty of
care.
RULES
Australian Contract Law provides for legal enforcement of the promises was made part of
the bargain freely entered into the forming of legal relationship that are known as acceptance.
They are required to have legal binding over both the parties to contract (Wisker, and Robinson,
2018). Contract Law provides requires the parties to take reasonable care of the goods that are
handed over to the service provider for servicing.
Duty of Care is legal duty of taking care of not causing harm to the other person which
could be foreseen reasonably. The major case law relating to the service providers and
professional regarding the breach of contract is Astley & Ors V Austrust Limited (1999
HCA6).
The case provides for plaintiff to sue for the breach of contract & common law
negligence where the concurrent liability in contract a tort exists.
Contract for the service consists of implied promise of taking reasonable care & skills in
performance of services (Descheemaeker, 2019). It is an implied contractual duty of not
affecting in the way for tortuous duty of taking reasonable care.
In claim for the negligence, plaintiff could be guilty of the contributory negligence, also
where defendant has failed of protecting plaintiff from damage that arises from every event
giving rise to defendant.
Apportionments legislations in every jurisdiction that is applicable only to the actions of
tort & not with the actions for the breach of contract.
APPLICATION
In the present case it is identified that Grace has the contractual obligation of taking
reasonable care of the shows that were provided by the Kelly. Also as per the contract law it is
provided that it is the duty of the party accepting the contract to read the terms and condition
associated with the contract (Negligence and Breach of Contract, 2019). Kelly signed the receipt
1

without reading that contained the clause regarding the damage of shoes during the repairs even
it is caused due to negligence of repairers. It is provided that the service providers can include
precautionary clauses in receipts for protecting them against the claims from plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
It is concluded that as per the contract law that the negligence by the Grace could not be
claimed as damage as Kelly has signed the agreement in the form of receipts regarding the
damage due to negligence. However the High Court can provide to Kelly to claim damages for
the breach of contract due to negligence as in the case of Astley v Austrust. As per this case
Grace has the implied duty of taking reasonable care of the shoes that are handed over for
repairs.
2

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Wisker, G. and Robinson, G., 2018. In sickness and in health, and a ‘duty of care': phd student
health, stress and wellbeing issues and supervisory experiences.
Descheemaeker, E., 2019. Compte-rendu de James Plunkett, The Duty of Care in Negligence
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018)(Review of James Plunkett, The Duty of Care in
Negligence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018)). The Duty of Care in Negligence,
pp.438-442.
Online
Negligence and Breach of Contract. 2019. [Online]. Available through :
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWALawRw/2000/2.pdf>.
3