LST5CCL Company & Commercial Law: Contract Breach and Legal Risk

This case study solution addresses a breach of contract scenario, focusing on financial compensation for losses incurred due to discrepancies in table sizes and the need for repairs. It explores negligent misrepresentation, advising on remedies such as replacing tables or redesigning the restaurant to meet initial profitability goals. The analysis identifies potential legal risks, including reputational damage, and emphasizes the importance of risk management strategies like risk aversion, reduction, and sharing. The solution also suggests settling repair costs and compensating for business losses during modifications to avoid lawsuits and maintain a positive public image. The case draws parallels with relevant case law, such as Norfolk Southern v James N and Omnicare v. Laborers Dist., to highlight the legal consequences of contract breaches and misrepresentation. Desklib provides access to similar case studies and resources for students.

Name
Student ID
Tutorials day and time
Tutor’s time
Word count

2
Assistance/Financial compensation based on contract
Basing on the facts provided, it is of utmost importance that I provide the necessary
compensation for the minor breach of contract. This lies on the fact that the contract was fulfilled
despite the arise of some few discrepancies regarding the size of the tables. Financial
compensation on the losses that were as a resultant of the breach would go a long way in helping
James business for the most part that his business was functional. A money reward is to be
handed to James as a compensation for financial losses by the breach of contract. Considering
James was injured by the breach, he is entitled to benefit of contract entered, or the net gain that
has accrued for the breach. It is also advisable that I settle the cost of repairs of the tables. Since
the contract attributed to an arrangement that would allow for an increased number of customers,
it is prudent that an arrangement is made to take care of the possible substitution of the already
bought tables with the ones stated earlier in the in the contract. Since the estimated profit is far
off from the one that was initially intended, the agreed upon amount in the contract can be used
to cater for the business loss for the duration that the changes will be done and the time that the
business was running to avoid a case against architecture company. In relation to the case law of
Norfolk Southern v James N it is evident a non-breaching party may sue for a minor breach,
which a court can dictate for the breaching party to complete its obligated performance or to pay
damage fee. In order to maintain a good image to the public the company can avoid a lawsuit by
2meeting James agreements. Ensuring that the above are sorted out will guarantee fulfilment of c
contract responsibility on my side.
Negligent Misrepresentation
The only contractual remedy for misrepresentation is recession and sometimes damages
depending on the case and type of misrepresentation. This implies that one did not directly lie,
but a representation about something was made while having no reasonable reasons for believing
it to be true. In order to avoid recession due to negligence I need to ensure that I replace the
tables as per James requirement, or I can consider taking back the tables and returning the money
to James. On the issue of the tables outside the footpath that according to the inspector from the
local council were prohibited, I would suggest an immediate removal of the tables in order to
comply with the legislation of street-side dining and avoid a lawsuit on the restaurant and my
business alike. Removal of the outside tables would mean that James is to be compensated on

3
each table and a fee should be deducted from the initial tables and chairs total amount. A
consideration can be made in regards to an entire full redesigning of the restaurant in order to try
to meet the number of customers it was intended to accommodate. This can ensure that the
intended profitability of the restaurant can be achieved in close relation to the contract. I can
assist in acquiring smaller tables to maximize on the available space. All the remaining fee that
was agreed upon will also be returned to James. This would prove healthy for both of the
businesses since a lawsuit will be avoided and James would have received services close to the
initially intended. In this case James would have recouped back some of the cash he spent on
designing of the business and my company would have avoided possible lawsuit that could taint
its image to the public. In accordance to Omnicare v. Laborers Dist., negligent and fraudulent
misrepresentation are serious civil offenses and are susceptible to damage payment and
recession.
Possible legal risks
Legal risk alludes to harm or any misfortune incurred to a business because of carelessness in
consistence with laws identified with the business. It very well may be experienced at any phase
of business procedures. These risks may result to loss and as such the whole reputation of a
business depends on this. The types of legal risks include regulatory, compliance, operational,
contractual and dispute risk.
Reputational risk relates to this case since it involves the loss to the great name or standing of an
association arising because of any acts of neglect or any criminal occasion is called reputational
risk. Reputational chance emerges because of the inclusion of workers or other fringe parties like
providers. Other than having great administration and straightforwardness organizations ought to
likewise center around Social obligation.
commercial contractual risk management includes the accompanying successive activities (as
fitting): Identifying business legally binding danger administration issues utilizing a suitable
multi-area group (e.g., business, tasks, deals/showcasing, specialized, contracts, lawful, back,
and so forth.); Assessing/evaluating business legally binding danger administration issues (i.e.,
probability of hazard and outcomes of risk); Assessing/evaluating business legally binding
danger administration issues (i.e., probability of hazard and outcomes of risk); Actualizing
hazard evasion (i.e., dismissal of specific kinds of high-chance work, if proper); Taking part in

4
hazard decrease (i.e., choice of lower-chance customers that are fiscally solid and non-litigious,
and additionally determination of lower-chance activities, if suitable); Considering hazard
sharing by subcontracting/outsourcing (if suitable); Utilizing protection to control dangers;
Applying hazard alleviation by evasion, disposal, exchange, or bearing the hazard (if suitable);
Executing hazard balance; Observing/controlling danger; and Reliably utilizing very much
arranged understandings/legally binding arrangements.Business authoritative hazard
administration ought to give an unmistakable, organized methodology in tending to legally
binding dangers. Likewise, such a methodology is very financially savvy in sparing assets, for
example, time, resources, salary, and individuals. An express lawful hazard resilience approach
accomplishes two objectives. In the first place, it spares the association cash by adjusting the
expense of hazard treatment. The association can't know the amount to spend on precaution
chance administration in the event that it doesn't have an objective for adequate hazard. Second,
the legitimate hazard resilience strategy enhances authoritative effectiveness. For instance, it isn't
strange for deals officials to gripe about income bargains held up in lawful. On the off chance
that the two sides comprehend the association's resistance for chance, at that point deals officials
and attorneys can team up on the agreement genuinely. It is additionally prudent that I settle the
expense of repairs of the tables. Since the agreement ascribed to a game plan that would take into
account an expanded number of clients, it is reasonable that a course of action is made to deal
with the conceivable substitution of the as of now purchased tables with the ones expressed
before in the in the agreement. Since the evaluated benefit is distant from the one that was at first
proposed, the settled upon sum in the agreement can be utilized to provide food for the business
misfortune for the length that the progressions will be done and the time that the business was
hurrying to keep away from a body of evidence against engineering organization