Detailed Legal Analysis: Contract, Employment, and Tort Law Issues

This law case study analyzes several legal issues arising from a scenario involving Ross, a food shop owner, and his dealings with various parties. The analysis addresses whether Ross is liable for monetary compensation to Rachel regarding a beef supply agreement, whether a breach of contract occurred between Ross and Chandler concerning the quality of beef supplied, whether Ross's dismissal of Monica for gross misconduct was justified, and whether Phoebe is entitled to compensatory benefits following an accident. The study utilizes UK contract law, employment law, and tort law principles, referencing legal precedents to evaluate the liabilities and rights of the involved parties. It concludes by assessing vicarious liability and the implications of negligence in the context of the presented facts.

Law Assessment

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY.................................................................................................................................3
Facts summary........................................................................................................................3
Issues in discussions...............................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................9
References:...................................................................................................................................10

INTRODUCTION
Law has a very wide scope from the time immemorial. The term law can be defined as
the rules and regulations that are set to maintain the discipline in the society by the legal
authorities. These laws are set by the authorised regularities. These laws are applicable on the
general public. It is the duty of the legal authorities to check and manage that all such laws are
complying in an effective way (Emerson, et.al., 2021). They must ensure that the defaulters who
don't follow the law gets punished. Moreover, this essay deals with number of laws like
employment law, contract law and tort law. All the laws discussed here is of civil nature. These
laws are very vital while coordinating with the the management of the company. Moreover, the
contract law deals with the duties and rights of the parties to the contract (Кремзукова, 2019).
Both the parties to the contract must fulfil the conditions as written under the contract. Further
more, the employment laws provide the protection to the employees. These employment laws
are formulated for the welfare of the employees of the company. It is the duty of every
employer to fulfil the rules and regulations as prescribed in the employment laws of the country.
In the next section of this essay it also deals with the tort laws of the country. The tort are the
civil wrongs done by the defaulter party. In tort, generally the compensation is done in terms of
money by the defaulter party. For instance, trespassing is also a type of tort. This essay further
discussed about all such laws and its applicability in the given case scenario.
MAIN BODY
Facts summary
In the given case study, Ross is a successful businessman. He owns a number of food
shops in the city. The food shops of Ross is popular for the organic beef. Ross has offered
Rachel, the manager of Red Gate Farm regarding the supply of organic beef. They decided that
the price of the beef will be changed every month according to the market price. Further, Ross
decided to contract with the High Hill Farm regarding the organic beef supply. A meeting was
held between Ross and Chandler who was the manager of High Hill. The mandatory condition
of the contract was that Chandler will provide the pure organic beef to Ross's food shop. The
agreement related to the supply of organic beef was of 3 year in which the price of the beef will
be decided monthly. Chandler agrees to all the three conditions of the contract namely the three
year time period of contract, monthly price negotiations and providing pure organic beef to the

shop of Ross. A legal contract was formed between both the parties stating all the three
conditions of the contract. Meanwhile, Rachel gave his acceptance to the offer given by Ross
through email. But, when Ross saw the email, he was already in contract with Chandler. Due to
this, he requested Rachel to revoke the offer. But, Rachel denied to do so as he had earlier said
no to other farm for providing the same organic beef. Further, it came to the notice of Ross that
the beef provided by High Hill is not organic. It was made up of fertilisers and pesticides. Ross
is now in a very big loss as it will defame the name of his food shop. Ross orders the
compensation to Chandler. Chandler denied for such compensation. Therefore, in order to meet
Chandler face to face he asked his young staff named Monica to take him to Chandler's office
by driving him the car. Monica denied for such drive as she had received her driving licence one
day before. Even after such denial Ross requested Monica to drive as he was drunk and can't
drive self. Further, after reaching to the farm of Chandler, the car was stuck in a tractor of High
hill farm. Due to such an accident, Ross was hospitalised and a minor injury to Monica was
caused. Ross dismisses Monica. Moreover, Phoebe, Chandler's wife suffered shock after seeing
such a horrified accident. Now, Phoebe is also hospitalised due to such Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder(Bogg, 2020).
Issues in discussions
The following essay perplexes basically with these four legal issues as described below-
1. Whether Ross is liable for monetary compensation to Rachel?
2. Whether there is any breach of contract between Ross and Chandler?
3. Whether the gross misconduct as applied by Ross is correct?
4. Whether Phoebe is liable to get compensatory benefits from Monica, the staff member
of Ross?
All the legal issues related to this case study is discussed below with the use of precedents and
common law as applicable by the legislations of United Kingdom. The approach as used in this
case scenery is theologian as discussed below.
Issue 1- Whether Ross is liable for monetary compensation to Rachel?

The contract law of United Kingdom basically deals with the legal framework of the
parties to the contract. It discusses about the rights and the duties of the parties to the contract. It
creates a binding effect on the parties to fulfil the conditions of the contract. Generally, all the
contracts are related to the obligation of doing or not doing an act which both the parties agrees
to follow in any condition (Henley, 2021). If any party does not comply with the conditions as
given in the contract then, it will be termed as breach of contract. According to the UK laws of
contract, there are four major elements to make an agreement converted into a contract. These
four essential elements are offer, acceptance, consideration and legal intention to create a
contract. The first step is offer in which one party offers the other party to do or not to do an act
(Grusic, 2021). Then, the second step is acceptance where one party accepts the offer as offered
by the other party. When such party accepts the offer, then it is known as acceptance. The
acceptance given can be in two forms namely implied or expressed. The next step is
consideration for contract. There must be some consideration in order to make it a valid
contract. The last step is to make an agreement a contract is both the parties must have a legal
intention to enter into such a contract as decided by the parties (Ahmed, 2021).
In the above scenario, there was the existence of contract between Ross and Rachel as all the
four basic essentials of the contract is fulfilled here. It is negligence by the side of Ross that he
didn't checked his mails. Rachel is liable to get monetary compensation from Ross that he had
suffered due to such negligence.
Issue 2- Whether there is any breach of contract between Ross and Chandler?
The breach of contract occurs when one of the party of the contract failed to fulfil the
conditions as prescribed under the contract. When such one party does not fulfil its duty as
given in the contract, then the right of the other party is infringed (Horsey and Rackley, 2021).
The breach of the contract can happen even if only one condition is not fulfilled out of all the
conditions. Generally, every contract needs that there should not be misrepresentation of the
material things in the contract. The misrepresentation may also lead to breach of contract by
the suffered party. There are several remedies as provided by the contract law of United
Kingdom. The misrepresentation is the result of ambiguity and vague statements that mislead
the basic conditions of the contract) (Bork and Wandt, 2020). The contract must specify
conditions in transparent form. So, that, minimum consequence of misrepresentation in the

contract. The damages can be claimed by the innocent party in case of misrepresentation of
contract. This happens before the execution of such contract when the wrong information
regarding the contract is given to the other party. In such a situation, the suffered party can
rescind the contract anytime. In case of Bisset V. Wilkinson, the court decides the case of
misrepresentation where the defendant conveyed that the land holds 2000 ships, but later on it
came to knowledge that it was falsely represented by the defaulter party. Hence, the case was
revoked.
In this case, Ross has also suffered from the misrepresentation done by Chandler. The Chandler
is liable for the monetary compensation to the innocent party. This is because Chandler has not
provided the organic beef for which he has promised in the contract. The organic beef is the
basic condition of the contract which was not fulfilled by the defaulter party. This has led to the
defamation of the shop of Ross (Eller, 2020). The innocent party has suffered a very huge loss
due to this because the shop was only famous for the organic beef. Hence, the innocent party
can claim for damages in the given case study.
Issue 3- Whether the gross misconduct as applied by Ross is correct?
This case study also deals with the employment laws of the UK. The employment laws
of UK provide for the duties and the rights of both the employers and the employees. This law is
established by the legislature as to make sure that there is minimum case of exploitation of
employees by the employer. It is set for the welfare of the employees(Wragg, 2019). This act
also helps with the promotion of human rights in the country. According to this law, it is the
duty of the employer to prove healthy, hygienic and humane working conditions to the
employee. According to Employment Act, 1996 which provides for the legal assistance and
safety to the employees of any organisation.
In the given case scenario, Monica, the young member of the staff was dismissed by her boss
Ross for the gross misconduct (Tomkins, et.al., 2020). The term gross misconduct refers to the
unacceptable conduct of the employee like theft, violence, damages, etc. If such a wrongful
conduct is done by an employee, then the employer has the right to dismiss the employee at that
time. In order to gain the further knowledge the investigation can be done for such misconduct.
After the investigation, it can be ascertain the seriousness of the misconduct. If the misconduct
is of very serious nature that is harming any person or company severely, then the employer can

dismiss such employee instantly without any further notice given to him. All the issues that
defame the company will also come in misconduct by the employee. The employer further can
raise legal claim in case of negligence or any illegal activity done by the employee. Similarly, in
case of Moore v. C&A Modes (1981) , shop lifting theft was done by an employee. As a
consequence of this, the manager dismisses the employee for such misconduct done by the
employee. The court further held that gross misconduct will be done in case of any illegal
activity done by the employee.
In the given case, Monica was the employee of Ross. It can be clearly seen the existence of
master and servant relationship between Ross and Monica. Here, Monica was bound to obey
the orders of Ross. Ross, due to in intoxication condition cannot drive the car. So, he ordered
Monica to drive the car for him. Here, Monica earlier told Ross about her poor driving skills.
Ross even after knowing such unskilled driving condition of Monica told her to drive for the
car. Hence, the accident done by Monica lie within the liability of Ross. This is because Ross is
liable for vicarious liability for the acts done by Monica. The reason behind this is that there
was no presence of intentional harm by the end of Monica. Further, it can be seen that there was
no negligence by the side of Monica. Monica was only performing her duty of employee as
ordered by the employer. Therefore, it can be concluded that Monica is not held liable for such
mishappening at the farm of Chandler as no neglect and wrongful intention by the side of
employee.
Issue 4- Whether Phoebe is liable to get compensatory benefits from Monica, the staff
member of Ross?
The term tort means to a civil wrong done against any other person. It is not a criminal
wrong. The cases of tort are filled into civil courts of the country. The law prescribes the
provisions for nervous shocks suffered due to the acts done by the defaulter party. In the case of
Byrne v. Southern and Western Railway Co. , the concept of nervous shock was firstly held
by the court. This case held that the liability to pay damages are determined by the psychiatric
damages that are suffered by the innocent party (Tomkinsalet , 2020). According to the English
law any act due to neglect or omission by the defaulter party may result to nervous shock.
Generally, the cases of nervous shock arises from seeing any dangerous accident or same
incident that had occurred in the past of the sufferer party. These are the consequence of intense

shock in the mind because these are maintained by the nervous system of the human body.
Moreover, it can be seen that merely stating the cause of such shock will not help in claiming
the damages in the court. But, the innocent party must prove the elements of negligence in the
tort is present here. There must be the presence of duty of care and the breach of such duty by
the defaulter. There must be a link between the breach of duty and shock. The shock must not
be so remote to the duty.
Similarly, in the case of Phoebe and Monica there is a clear link between the breach of duty and
shock suffered by the Chandler's wife. It was the duty of Monica to drive safely and skilfully
which was breached by Monica. In the given case Ross and Monica is in the master servant
relationship. So, it is the vicarious liability of Ross to be liable for the acts of Monica.
Therefore, in this case Ross is liable for the legal damages that Phoebe is claiming. Hence, the
innocent party here is legally liable to claim the damages from the defaulter party.

CONCLUSION
The above given essay concludes the provisions of employment law, tort, contract law of United
Kingdom. It discusses about the essentials of contract. In the given case scenario, Rachael was
liable to get compensation from Ross as there was the existence of contract between the Rachael
and Ross. It was the negligence by the end of Ross. Further, the essay discusses about the
misrepresentation of facts in the contract. Chandler, in this case misrepresents the facts of the
contract. It results into breach of contract. Moreover, it summarises the misconduct of the
employee. Here, in this case no misconduct was done by Monica as the act done by her comes
under the duty of employee. Likewise, Gross is also liable for the compensatory claim done by
Chandler's wife due to such nervous shock.

References:
Books and Journals
Ahmed, M., 2021. Private International Law and Substantive Liability Issues in Tort Litigation
against Multinational Companies in the English Courts: Recent UK Supreme Court
Decisions and Post-Brexit Implications. M Ahmed,'Private International Law and
Substantive Liability Issues in Tort Litigation against Multinational Companies in the
English Courts: Recent UK Supreme Court Decisions and Post-Brexit
Implications'(2021), 17.
Bogg, A., 2020. " Labour Law Is a Subset of Employment Law" Revisited. Dalhousie LJ, 43,
p.479.
Bork, K. and Wandt, M., 2020. “Utmost” good faith in German contract law. Zeitschrift für die
gesamte Versicherungswissenschaft, 109(2), pp.243-254.
Eller, K.H., 2020. Comparative Genealogies of “Contract and Society”. German Law
Journal. 21(7). pp.1393-1410.
Emerson, E., et.al., 2021. The impact of disability on employment and financial security
following the outbreak of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Journal of Public
Health. 43(3). pp.472-478.
Grusic, U., 2021. Tort Law and State Accountability for Overseas Violations of International
Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law: the UK Perspective. Utrecht
Journal of International and European Law.
Henley, A., 2021. The rise of self-employment in the UK: entrepreneurial transmission or
declining job quality?. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 45(3). pp.457-486.
Horsey, K. and Rackley, E., 2021. Casebook on Tort Law. Oxford University Press.
Tomkins, C., et.al., 2020. Should doctors tackling covid-19 be immune from negligence liability
claims?. Bmj, 370.
Tomkins, C., et.al., 2020. Should doctors tackling covid-19 be immune from negligence liability
claims?. Bmj, 370.
Wragg, P., 2019. Human rights reasoning and the contract law scholar. In Reimagining Contract
Law Pedagogy (pp. 154-166). Routledge.

Кремзукова, А.Е., 2019. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM
AND EMPLOYMENT FOR GRADUATES IN THE UK AND RUSSIA. Молодежь.
Общество. Современная наука, техника и инновации. (18). pp.130-132.