Griffith University 2105AFE Business Law Assignment

This document presents a comprehensive solution to a Business Law assignment, addressing key aspects of tort law, including negligence, duty of care, and negligent misstatement. The assignment analyzes hypothetical scenarios, applying relevant legislation such as the Civil Liability Act 2003 and referencing landmark cases like Shaddock and Associated Pty Ltd v. Parramatta City Council and Mutual Life and Citizens' Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt. The solution explores issues of professional liability, contributory negligence, and the responsibilities of various parties, providing detailed applications of legal principles and concluding with reasoned outcomes for each scenario. It also covers defenses to negligence, and vicarious liability. This resource is designed to assist students in understanding and applying legal concepts to practical situations. The assignment is structured to provide a clear understanding of the application of the law to specific situations, offering a valuable resource for students studying business law.

Running head- BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
1.

1Business Law
Answer to 1
Issues
The main issue identified from the scenario is:
Whether Kathy will be successful in claiming the damages from Peter for the loss
she suffered in her business due to the advice of Peter?
Law
The following legislations that shall be applicable in the following scenario are as
follows:
 Section 20 of the Civil Liability Act, 2003
 Section 22 of the Civil Liability Act, 2003
 Shaddock and Associated Pty Ltd v. Parramatta City Council(1981)
 Mutual Life and Citizens' Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968)
Application
It is stated that Kathy shall be eligible to claim for the damages and the losses that
she suffered in the business due to the wrong advice and the wrong statement of
Peter. As per the facts, the business of Kathy was successful in the Queensland
region, and she does not have any idea of her business of activewear to be
operative in another state. For that reason, she hired Peter to understand the risks
and the benefits of expanding the business. According to Sec- 20, the provision
states the term “professional”. According to the Section, a professional is a person
who is responsible for a particular profession or possess the expertise regarding a
specific profession for which he is considered as a professional of that profession.
So it was the duty of Peter to provide her with a proper service so that her business
does not undergo any kind of loss. According to the Sec-22, it states that the
standard of care and the duty that shall be possessed by a professional. It ensures
that the act by the professional is not against the guidelines as per mentioned under
the law, and he has acted following the provisions and the guidelines mentioned. By
applying this in the case, it is clear that the conduct of Peter was not following the
duty that he was ought to do. In the case of Shaddock and Associate, it was held
that the defendant was made liable to pay for the damages that the plaintiff suffered

2Business Law
in her business. Likewise, in this case, it was Peter’s decision for which she suffered
the loss. So Peter shall be held liable for the misstatement.
Additionally by applying the case of Mutual Life and Citizens, the judgment was
similar, and the defendant was made liable for the damages. Similarly, in this case,
the misstatement and the lack of duty of care of Peter, for which Kathy suffered a
considerable loss that makes her eligible for the claim. So it is evident that by
applying the laws mentioned above and cases the liability is upon Peter, as it was his
advice for which the Kathy suffered and it was the lack of duty to provide for the
services that were his duty, and he failed to perform his duty efficiently.
Conclusion
In conclusion, by following the decision of the High court in the case of
Shaddock and Associated and by the privy council in the case of Mutual
Life and Citizens similarly in this scenario Kathy will be eligible to claim the damage
amount from Peter that is $500,000 under Section- 20 and 22 of CLA.

3Business Law
Answer to 2
Application
Following Section 23 of the Civil Liability Act, 2003 the Forestdale Shire
Council shall not own a duty of care towards Harry. As per the law, in a case where
there is a lack of duty or responsibility from the part of the plaintiff for which the
damage has occurred then the plaintiff shall not be eligible for claiming damages.
Following the facts of the case, Harry knew that he was a weak swimmer, but
despite that, he plunged into the water. His act itself was the reason behind his
injury. As the beach is lonely and knowing that there are no lifesavers, he should not
have plunged into the water. Hence, it makes it clear that he suffered due to
contributory negligence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is stated as per the decision of the Queensland court the
Forestdale Shire Council does not own a duty of care towards Harry and will not be
liable to pay the amount of $175,000 as compensation.
Answer to 3
Application
Under Sec 9 and Sec 22, it can be stated that the harm or injury suffered to
Ted was due to Johnny’s breach of duty. As per the law duty of care is defined by
certain elements such as the proximity of damage and the foreseeability of the
damage caused. Under Sec 22(5), any professional is liable for providing the
services with due respect and care. Applying the fact, it is evident that it was the duty
of Jhonny to look after the fact that the ingredients used in the pizza are fresh and
does not cause harm to others. Moreover, he must ensure that his food does not
harm others.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the court shall hold that Jhonny was responsible for the harm
suffered to Ted, and he shall pay the amount of $800,000 as compensation.

4Business Law
Reference
Mutual Life and Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556
Sec 22(5), Civil Liability Act,2003
Section 20 of the Civil Liability Act, 2003
Section 23 of the Civil Liability Act, 2003
Section 9 of the Civil Liability Act, 2003
Shaddock and Associated Pty Ltd v. Parramatta City Council (1981) 36 ALR 385;
(1981) 55 ALJR 713