Legal Analysis of Nora and Brian: Core Principles and Torts Law

This report analyzes the case study of Nora and Brian, focusing on core legal principles, particularly within the context of tort law, misrepresentation, and unfair contract terms. The report identifies several legal issues, including misrepresenting qualifications to secure employment and unauthorized use of company resources. It applies relevant legal principles, such as the law of torts, the Misrepresentation Act 1967, and principles related to unfair contract terms, to the case. The analysis draws parallels to case law, such as Derry v Peek, to illustrate the application of these principles. The report concludes that Nora's actions constitute breaches of legal and ethical standards, potentially leading to termination and liability for damages. The report highlights the importance of adhering to legal and ethical standards in business and professional contexts. This assignment is available on Desklib, a platform offering AI-powered study tools and resources for students to enhance their learning experience.

CORE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Contents
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................3
ISSUE................................................................................................................................................3
RULES..............................................................................................................................................3
APPLICATION:................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
Present report is based upon the case study of the Nora and Brian. In this case Nora is
applying for the job of the solicitor and thus approaches to Brian for facing interview session
with him. Thus, in this report the discussion is based upon carrying the law of torts and also
various other legal issues are identified (Muchlinski, 2018). It is also covered with the legal
solution which is undertaken in respect of reducing the impact of the legal issues in business.
ISSUE
In this case, the matter reflects the issue of misrepresenting the actual identify of the
Nora and using the qualification and knowledge of the Samantha in respect of getting job in
the law firm. Another legal issues which is identified is relating to using the card of the
business without their prior permission and also the purpose of using is for personal printing
invitation card. After receiving her first salary she approaches to the rainy Bolton Insurance
company in respect of completing the insurance of the car insurance and also claiming to get
discount for the qualified lawyer.
RULES
Under the law of torts act, 1974, it is stated that the when any person commit any civil
or criminal activity then other person carry the right to file the compensation under the law of
torts act (Adams, Caplan and Lockwood, 2020). It carried three essential elements such as
duty of care, breach of duty and causation. In case of duty of care, the owner carries the duty
to protect the interest. In respect of breach in duty, it related to willfully commit the breach
regarding knowing the truth of damages to be incurred. Causation is stipulated once the
breach is undertake and damages is incurred to parties.
In case of intentional tort, it is stated that the person are familiar with the facts that he
is dealing in any wrongful misconduct which affects the right of the persons (Auby, 2017).
This is explained with the case of Derry V Peek [1889] which stated that the issues is raised
regarding misinterpreting the facts and not telling the truth regarding not getting the
permission to use the steam trams.
Under the misrepresentation act, 1967 it is stated that if any person provides false
statement about the facts and law which he committed. It is further divided into three segment
such as false misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and wholly innocent
misrepresentation (Chinwuba, 2020). The main focus is on the false statement which reflects
the matters that knowingly the activity was committed which is false and also against the
right of the person.
In respect of rules mentioned under the Unfair contract terms, it is stipulated that
entering into the contract with the person through imposing the unfair terms which affecting
the right of the persons (Conlon, 2019). Thus, rights are given to the person regarding taking
strict action in respect of breach committed in any of the terms.
APPLICATION:
By applying the law of torts in the recent case study, it is stipulated that Nora
breaches his duty regarding not taking permission from the supervision in respect of using the
business card (Cornford, 2016). It is linked with the case of Derry V Peek [1889], which

stipulated that the judgment is given on the bases of carrying the false misrepresentation
regarding not disclosing the information about the arrival of the products. Similarly in the
case of Nora, she used the business card without the permission of the supervisor. Thus,
resulting in breaching the condition of the law firms (Davies, 2016). The judgment which is
raised in this case is relating to claiming for the damages or also imposing punishment
regarding using the company resources without the permission from supervisor.
In respect of matters related to the unfair terms, it is stipulated that the Nora is
entering into the contract with the insurance company on the unfair terms or also in respect of
understanding the matter related to the misrepresentation (Foster, 2018). As she get the job on
the bases of showing the document of the Samantha and also she is claiming the additional
discount in respect of showing the document of the qualified lawyers. Thus, insurance
company carry the right to dismiss the contract regarding not accepting the application of the
car insurance (Kubica, 2017). By the above laws, it is stipulated that in case of
misrepresentation, the plaintiff carry the right to terminate the person, if any person availed
the job on the bases of showing the wrong documents.
CONCLUSION
From the above study, the case concludes the matters relating to misrepresenting the
documents and getting the jobs on that bases. As Nora commit the offences relating to getting
the job through presenting the wrong document, Brian carry the rights in respect of
terminating the Nora on the bases of misrepresentation of her documents and qualification.
Another legal issues which is identified is relating to using the firms photocopying card
without their permission and used it for their personal benefits. Thus, it results in breaching in
law of torts. Thus, in return Nora is liable to pay compensation for the losses incurred. In this
case, the damages in not incurred upon any of the person, thus the claim is raised by the law
form in respect of actual losses incurred. It is stated that if any person demands for the unfair
terms, which is not necessary to be fulfilled during the time of entering into the contract. The
offeror, they carry the right to terminate the contract in respect of not performing the contract
as per the set terms and conditions.
CONCLUSION
Thus, from the above report, it is concluded that various legal issues are identified in
this case study and also relevant case laws are imposed in respect of securing the right of the
following person whose right are violated through any of the illegal issues. In this case, the
laws are also examined such as law of torts act, contract act, misrepresentation act and also
unfair contract terms act and thus accurate judgments are imposed regarding securing the
rights of the parties.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Adams, A., Caplan, S. and Lockwood, G., 2020. Law for business students. Pearson Higher
Ed.
Auby, J. B., 2017. Contracting out and ‘public values’: A theoretical and comparative
approach. In Comparative Administrative Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Chinwuba, N. N., 2020. Recent developments in the application of the doctrine of vicarious
liability by United Kingdom courts. Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of
International Law and Jurisprudence. 11(1). pp.137-148.
Conlon, E., 2019. Civil liability for abuses of ILO core labour rights in European Union
government supply chains: Ireland as a case study. In Public Procurement and
Human Rights. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Cornford, T., 2016. Towards a public law of tort. Routledge.
Davies, P. S., 2016. Rescission for misrepresentation. The Cambridge Law Journal. 75(1).
pp.15-17.
Foster, N. J., 2018. Tort Liability of Churches for Clergy Child Abuse after the Royal
Commission: Implications of Developments in the Law of Vicarious Liability and
Non-Delegable Duty.
Kubica, M. L., 2017. Legal Doctrine on Rylands v. Fletcher: One more time on Feasibility of
a General Clause of Strict Liability in the UK. International Journal of Law and
Political Sciences. 10(10). pp.3542-3550.
Muchlinski, P., 2018. Juan José Álvarez Rubio and Katerina Yiannibas (editors), Human
Rights in Business: Removal of Barriers to Access to Justice in the European Union
(Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2017) ISBN 978-1-138-28418-0, i–xii, pp. 146 and
index. Business and Human Rights Journal. 3(2). pp.299-301.