Analyzing Torts, Negligence, and Contracts in a Corporate Law Case

This case study delves into two distinct legal scenarios within the realm of corporate law, focusing on contracts, torts, and negligence. The first scenario examines Zoka Zola's claim for compensation following injuries sustained due to Bilbo Junior's negligent driving, considering the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria and contributory negligence. It also analyzes Wayne's potential claim against Bilbo Junior, emphasizing the importance of awareness regarding Bilbo Junior's driving abilities. The second scenario assesses the exploitation of Mario and Nancy due to Ben's mismanagement of their investments, highlighting the breach of duty of care and potential contravention of contract terms based on a unilateral offer made through a newspaper advertisement. The analysis references key legal precedents like Donoghue v Stevenson and Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to determine liability and appropriate compensation. Desklib provides access to this and other solved assignments for students.

1
Corporate Law: Contracts and Torts

2
Question 1
Zoka Zola can claim compensation from Bilbo Junior only for the injuries caused due to
negligent driving on part of Bilbo Junior. It is to be evaluated appropriately the amount of
injuries caused as a result of negligence. However he would not be entitled to claim
compensation for the injuries that were caused as a result of the falling from the cliff as they
were caused due to his own adventurous activities as far as the doctrine of volenti non fit
injuria is concerned. It implies that if a person voluntarily ends up into a situation where the
causation harm or damage is inevitable, then there is no right to claim compensation for
injuries. Bilbo Junior is not entitled to claim any defence with reference to contributory
negligence since Zoka Zola had already kept himself at a distance from the road which is
considered to be safe (Luntz, et al., 2017). It was totally rash driving on part of Bilbo Junior
that led to the impairment of all four limbs of Zoka Zola. In such aspect, Bilbo Junior acted in
breach of duty of care thereby negligently hitting Zoka Zola as a result of recklessness with
regard driving. Taking account of the common law of England and Wales, rash driving is one
of the most essential tenets of the tort of negligence as far as the imposition of liability is
concerned (Levine, et al., 2016). In the case of Bolton v Stone, it was held by the House of
Lords that if a ball is hit by a batsman for a six in a game of cricket and subsequently hits a
person, the plaintiff cannot claim any compensation for negligence as far as volenti non fit
injuria is concerned since the defendant’s actions resulted in a damage that could not be
foreseen in a reasonable manner (Goldberg, Sebok and Zipursky, 2016). Similarly in the case
of Rinaldo v McGovern, it was held by the New York Court of Appeals that in the game of
golf, event the best of the golfers would not be able to avoid hitting the shots off the target on
certain instances. The New York Court of Appeals further concluded that a golfer would be
liable with regard to mis-hit of the ball if the shot is aimed at such an incorrect manner that
the risks involved with reference to unreasonable harm is inevitable. It is imperative that
liability must be imposed over Bilbo Junior on grounds of negligence since such a rash and
reckless driving would cause physical injury to a pedestrian or passerby inevitably.
Additionally, such kind of an accident can also lead to the death of a pedestrian or passerby.
Bilbo Junior also over sped by driving at eighty kilometres per hour whereas the prescribed
speed limit for the area is capped at forty kilometres per hour. It implies that in addition to the
tort of negligence, Bilbo Junior must also be charged for over speeding as per the motor
vehicle laws in force with reference to the appropriate territorial jurisdiction of the area where
the incident occurred (Best, Barnes and Kahn-Fogel, 2018).
Wayne is entitled to claim compensation from Bilbo Junior only if it is proved that Wayne
was not aware about Bilbo Junior’s lack of driving skills and being below the prescribed age
for driving taking account of the driving laws of the area concerned with reference to the
territorial jurisdiction of the scene (Epstein and Sharkey, 2016). The onus of proof lies on
Wayne in the capacity of plaintiff for the purpose of comprehending upon the claim of
appropriate compensation to be decided by the court or judicial authority concerned. If it is
established from the facts of the scenario that Wayne was well aware of Bilbo Junior not
being in a position to drive a motor vehicle, the defences of contributory negligence and
volenti non fit injuria would play a key role in addressing the issues between Wayne and

3
Bilbo Junior thereby resulting in a comprehensive solution. In the case of Hall v Herbert,
these defences played an extremely important role when it was decided by the Supreme Court
of Canada that the claim for illegal conduct can be barred only when circumstances are
restricted. In this case, both the plaintiff and the defendant had consumed alcohol together.
The plaintiff was supposed to be the passenger of the car owned by the defendant. However,
when the plaintiff requested to drive the car, the defendant agreed. When the plaintiff lost
control while driving, the car rolled down a slope and subsequently turned upside down. As a
result, injuries were suffered by the plaintiff thereby having his head bruised grievously. In
this case, an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of Canada following the decision made
by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. Such a rationale was applied again by the
Supreme Court of Canada in the case of British Columbia v Zastowny. In this case it was
held that a person cannot claim compensation on grounds of being unemployed during the
period of imprisonment unless it is established that the imprisonment was wrongful. In the
case of Li v Yellow Cab Company, it was held by the Supreme Court of California that both
the plaintiff and defendant would be held liable for comparative negligence with regard to the
accident caused between them during traffic since both of them were driving in a negligent
manner. In this case, the tort of comparative negligence was entrenched as far as the
jurisdiction of the state of California is concerned. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of
California set aside the concept of strict contributory negligence n this case. In the US, the
tort of comparative negligence came into being in the case of Hoffman v Jones where it was
held by the Supreme Court of Florida that the death of William Harrison Jones Junior was
caused due to the truck driven by Philip Francis Hoffman Junior. In this case, the defence of
contributory negligence was done away with. In order to claim compensation, Wayne must
prove that he was totally unaware of such intentions of Bilbo Junior.
Question 2
Mario and Nancy have been exploited due to the mismanagement on part of Ben since all of
the money invested by them has now been lost. Any advertisement in a newspaper is deemed
to be a unilateral offer which could be accepted by anyone as far as the common law
principles governing the law of contract are concerned. Ben acted in breach of duty of care in
this aspect that he owed towards Mario and Nancy. In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, the
defendant acted in breach of duty when it was discovered that a dead snail was found to be
floating in the bottle of ginger beer purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant. After
consuming the ginger beer, the plaintiff fell ill. In this case it was held by the House of Lords
that the defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff. As a result of the breach of such
duty, the defendant was held liable for negligence. In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke
Ball Company, the manufacturer made an advertisement in the newspaper claiming diagnosis
for flu and an award of hundred pounds for those it did not work out. In this case it was held
by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales that any advertisement in newspapers implying
specific terms and conditions for the purpose of claiming rewards constitutes an unilateral
offer that could be accepted by a person who browses through such advertisements during the
course of reading the newspapers (Knapp, Crystal and Prince, 2016). The Court of Appeal of
England and Wales further concluded that all the basic tenets of contract as per common law

4
were present thereby opining that Carbolic Smoke Ball Company was under an obligation to
pay hundred pounds to Mrs Louisa Elizabeth Carlill (McKendrick, 2014). In the given
scenario, Ben made a unilateral offer with reference to investment as far as the expansion of
his business is concerned. Furthermore, they were convinced by Kelly thereby acting in good
faith with regard to investing into Ben’s business and expecting to be rewarded in a proper
manner even though Kelly stated that they should exercise their own decision prior to the
making of the investment (Poole, 2016). As a result, both Ben and Kelly must be held liable
for not only breach of duty but also for contravening the terms and conditions of contract if it
is established from the advertisement in the newspaper that the investors would be rewarded
in a promising and satisfactory manner (Peel, 2015). As the advertisement was found to be
appealing for Mario and Nancy with reference to the investment, adequate compensation
must be awarded to them with regard to the recovery of the money invested in Ben’s
business. The scenario also implies that all the essentials of a valid contract are prevalent as
far as the terms and conditions of the advertisement are concerned (Eisenberg, 2018). These
essentials include the making of an offer and accepting it adequately, consideration with
regard to exchange and the intentions of the fostering of legal relationships.

5
Reference List
Best, A., Barnes, D.W. and Kahn-Fogel, N., 2018. Basic tort law: cases, statutes, and
problems. 7th ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Eisenberg, M.A., 2018. Foundational Principles of Contract Law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Epstein, R.A. and Sharkey, C.M., 2016. Cases and materials on torts. 3rd ed. New York:
Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Goldberg, J.C., Sebok, A.J. and Zipursky, B.C., 2016. Tort Law: Responsibilities and
Redress. 9th ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer law & business.
Knapp, C.L., Crystal, N.M. and Prince, H.G., 2016. Problems in Contract Law: cases and
materials. 10th ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Levine, L.C., Vetri, D., Vogel, J. and Gassama, I.J., 2016. Tort law and practice. 5th ed.
Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G. and Harder, S.,
2017. Torts: cases and commentary. 8th ed. London: LexisNexis Butterworths.
McKendrick, E., 2014. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press (UK).
Peel, E., 2015. Treitel on the Law of Contract (Vol. 414). 9th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Poole, J., 2016. Textbook on contract law. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.