The case of Hauer vs. Union State Bank of Wautoma - Research Paper Example

? Assignment Issue Barkley is the son of Knarles and he is aged 17. His father owns a firm which is run by him. When his father had gone for the Green Facilties Management Trade Show, Barkley was responsible for handling the issues of the firm. The question which arises here is whether Barkley is legally tenable to enter into contracts on behalf of the firm. One of the most fundamental principles of Contract Law is that an individual who is below the age of 18 cannot enter into contracts with other parties. This law also applies to situations which consist of an individual entering into contracts to represent a firm which has been established under law. Applying the law to the facts, we understand that Barkley was not eligible to enter into Contract with Chetum. Along with this, Barkley is not eligible to represent the firm of his father in his absence. Therefore, looking at the overall perspective of Contractual Obligations, Barkley could not have entered into a contract with any other party. In case a contract has been entered upon between a minor and some other party, then such contract happens to not be legally binding on the parties although the work of the contract may be carried out and performed by the parties. Issue 2 According to the facts taken hypothetically, Knarles was aware that his firm consisted of a number of plumbers whose licenses had not been renewed in the current year, and in spite of that his firm had sent one of them to a client by the name of Chetum, to do the repair work. The question which arises here right now is whether Knarles and his firm are criminally liable under the criminal jurisdiction for engaging a workman whose license had not been renewed. Under the criminal jurisprudence, there is nothing explicitly mentioned with regard to the renewal licence as a criminal liability. However, on the other hand, it is a civil liability the employer should have taken enough precaution to undergo the renewal process. IN this case, Knarles had not renewed the licence of his employee, and therefore on this point the plumber was not eligible to go and work in Chetum’s building. Whether Chetum is liable for Negligence When Barkley had sent the plumber to do the job at Chetum’s building, there were two options present for Chetum to execute: 1. To change the entire Boiler 2. To repair the Boiler When the plumber had gone there to check for the boiler, he had informed his boss Barkley that the boiler needs to be replaced and not repaired. Let us analyse the facts to get a clearer understanding. “While inspecting the non-operating boiler at Chetum’s building, the plumber notices that the boiler is one that has been recalled by the manufacturer, Housewarm, because of a defect that does not allow all the carbon monoxide produced by the boiler to vent properly. This boiler was purchased by Chetum at a salvage yard and replaced another non-operating boiler. Further, the boiler has been improperly installed, according to the plumber. The plumber notifies Barkley of the problems with the boiler and Barkley immediately notifies Chetum. Chetum tells Barkley that he does not want to purchase a new boiler. He asks if the existing boiler can be fixed to get through the winter months. Barkley calls his plumber who is still at the Chetum site and asks the plumber about a quick fix for the winter. The plumber tells Barkley he would not recommend the quick fix for the winter as this boiler is defective and has been recalled.” Looking at the facts, it can be directly inferred that the boiler which was in the building was defective and should have been replaced. However, to save costs and other expenditures, Chetum did not want that to happen and therefore asked for the boiler to be repaired. It is pertinent to note that the boiler which had been installed in the building was not only improperly installed but also was defective. Therefore there was an urgent need to replace the boiler, which was concurred by the plumber but not approved by Chetum. The question which arises right now is whether there is negligence on the part of Chetum for not allowing the correct installation of the boiler. The principle of negligence was first exercised in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 532. “The core idea of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people.” By negligence we mean that if there is potential harm or a situation which might arise where someone could get hurt, then the person who is in charge of the work should take reasonable care to make sure that no harm is done to the neighbour in his vicinity. In the case of Fletcher v Rylands ([1866] LR 1 Ex 265) the following observation was made: “those who go personally or bring property where they know that they or it may come into collision with the persons or property of others have by law a duty cast upon them to use reasonable care and skill to avoid such a collision.” Now, if the party which has been hurt can prove that it was due to the negligence of the responsible party then such party can extract damages in the form of monetary compensation. Applying the law to the facts, we see that Chetum was being negligent with the fact that he did not get the boiler replaced when there was an urgent to do the same. Whether Breach of Contract took Place: Knarles had been running the firm along with his minor son Barkley, who under the principle of contract law is not eligible to enter into contracts on his own or represent his father’s firm. They deal in the replacement of old equipment in households and do the repairs work as well. After Knarles had left for the meeting, he had given the charges of the firm into his son’s hands. However, it should be made clear over here that even though the management of the firm was under the hands of Barkley, under no circumstances could he have entered into a contract for work between the firm and the other party. In the case of Hauer v. Union State Bank of Wautoma, 192 Wis. 2d 576, 593 (1995), there was a classic example of a minor entering into contracts with other parties. The judge held that the minor can represent the firm if he is the sole surviving member of the firm at that current stage and that if there is a need to finish an existing contract, then the minor can take charge of the whole contractual proceedings. However, it was also held that in no circumstances can a minor start or establish a whole new contract on his own. Going by this principle of law, there amounts to be no breach of contract between Knarles and Chetum as there was no existing legally binding contract in the first place. When Knarles came back from the meeting, he came to know that his son had entered into a contract with Chetum on the repairing of the boiler. However, he also came to know from different news channels that Chetum does not have a good reputation in the market. Extracting the following facts from the problem. Chetum has charged Knarles with the breach of contract, but the fact is that he is charging the wrong party for the breach of contract, since the contract was entered by Barkley and not Knarles himself. Even though Barkley was representing the firm, he was a minor and therefore cannot enter into legally tenable contracts. Applying this principle Knarles cannot be charged for the breach of contract. Looking at the facts of the case, it can be inferred that there was not material breach of fundamental breach of contract. On the contrary, there is a case of tortious negligence on the part of Chetum. Along with this, he entered into a contract with a minor. Keeping these two facts into account, there is no breach of contract. References Fletcher v Rylands ([1866] LR 1 Ex 265) Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 532. Hauer v. Union State Bank of Wautoma, 192 Wis. 2d 576, 593 (1995), Read More