Analysis of Commercial Law Case - Essay Example

?Introduction Ellen could sue the council for injury to her business’s reputation on the grounds that because of the negligence of its employee, there was a direct impact in injuring the business reputation of Ellen’s meditation studio. The false advice given by the council employee resulted in the destruction of the unique quality of the services provided by Ellen’s business as well as its reputation as one of the unique places where individuals could get the best services in meditation. This is clearly a case of the provision of false information by the council to Ellen and she would be within her rights to seek justice in this case because the former not only infringed on her business but also led to a questioning of the quality of its services and this resulted in massive losses.1 Ellen has the right to sue the council for the injury to her business reputation as well as to her own health since the latter took place as a result of her being stressed because of the false information that led to the damaging of her business. The ability of Ellen to sue the council for damages not only to her business but also to her health offers particular advantages in protecting the reputation of her business because it can be proven that the council was negligent in its providing approval to start her business in the location that she did. Furthermore, the court will also presume that there was damage to the business or trading reputation of Ellen’s business and that she will need to be compensated by the council to ensure that its good reputation in the market is restored. If Ellen does not sue the council immediately on these grounds, then the reputation of her will be damaged further because council will be able to get away with not being able to fulfil its responsibility of ensuring that it provides accurate advice to her before she started her business. Establishment of claims The first thing that Ellen must do is to establish her claim for damages from the council is to prove that it is indeed the council was the negligent party, and that the latter had a duty to ensure that the information concerning her business location was accurate so that she would be able to establish it. Ellen’s claim against the council is one that cannot be disputed because it is as a direct result of the council’s employee’s negligence that Ellen came to be faced with all the problems she had after the disruption of her business as well as the development of her health problems.2 Therefore, in order for her case to go to court, she should make sure that her stand is not in any way disputed. Ellen would want to be able to prove that the council breached its duty and she has to do this in order to prove that it was negligent. Ellen must also be able to prove that it was as a direct result of the false information given by the council employee that brought about all the commercial and health damages that she sustained. It will be Ellen’s responsibility to prove that it was the failure in the council’s duty to provide legitimate information to her that led to the damages suffered by her.3 The third thing that Ellen will need to prove is that it was the negligent action of the council that was the cause of the damages that she is claiming compensation for and she will need to show proof of the medical records of the nervous breakdown she sustained as well as the photos of the renovation work being done in the neighbouring premises which came about as a result of the inaccurate approval that came about because of the council’s negligence.4 This will ensure that justice will be carried out in her favour and that she gets compensated for all the damages she sustained. The Plaintiff’s desired business environment It is the availability of a quiet space for meditation that would have provided Ellen with the opportunity to work effectively in order to not only achieve the goals of her business but also to provide satisfactory services to her customers. It should be understood that in the type of business that Ellen is involved in, it is often necessary to have absolute silence because it has a crucial role to play in the formulation of a proper environment for meditation. The development of such an environment involves finding a proper location which is conducive for the establishment of a meditation studio and in order to achieve this, it is often necessary to consult the local authorities. Furthermore, the establishment of such a location is determined by those qualities that have been put forward by the business owner with the help of the local authorities to ensure that there is an environment which can be used effectively for the purposes of meditation by the customers. In this way, the quiet environment of the meditation studio can be considered to be the reason why the business can be attractive to customers and will ensure that the best services for them are provided. Responsibility for Claims The business owner and the council have a shared sense of responsibility because of the fact that while it is the responsibility of the former to ensure that she specifies the environment needed for her business, it is the responsibility of the latter to ensure that such an environment is found and that there will be no other council approved activities that may interfere with the business. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the council to ensure that it provides the most current information concerning the proper location for Ellen to establish her business and this is likely to provide her with the opportunity to select the best place to establish it. However, in this case, the council failed in its duty towards its client, namely Ellen, because while she provided the council with all the information concerning the type of environment she needed for her business, the latter failed to deliver on its mandate by providing information which proved to be false. It is the responsibility of the council to ensure that all its employees are well versed in the current council activities in the city so that it is able to provide accurate information to its clients. Since this was not the case, then the council has the responsibility of paying Ellen for the damages that the information given by its employee caused her.5 Proving that the Defendant is at fault The ability of the council employees to be efficient in their work is one of the most noteworthy things that determine whether this institution is efficient in its mandated activities. However, the fact that the employee that Ellen consulted was not thorough in his assessment of her problem, hence, providing her with false information created a situation where she was not able to fulfil her goals and instead all resulted in her failure. When considering the aspect of efficiency among council employees, it is a fact that it is these employees who are the representatives of the council and that without them then it would not be able to provide any services to the public. The foremost aspect that can be ascribed to council employees is that they define the principles that are at the core of the aims and objectives of the council and it is they who make services to its clients possible. The second element to be considered is that it is the employees within the council who embody its sense of responsibility because, without them, there would be no way for the council to deliver crucial services concerning advice for suitable business location to its clients. The third element that should be considered is the routine interactions that are made between the employees of the council is necessary to ensure that they are up to date with all the council approved activities that are taking place in the city so that they are able to provide the correct information to their clients. There is also the informal communication system within the council which not only determines how well its employees work but also how they get to be flexible in their work so that they can be more productive. These aspects can be used by Ellen as a defence against the council in case the latter makes the assumption that it was the negligence of one of the employees and not the council itself which caused her to end up with all the damages she suffered.6 The above arguments can create a strong case against the council and this would ensure that Ellen receives her just dues by being compensated for the damages she suffered. It is a fact that most local authorities have given themselves broad powers when dealing with the different areas that they are supposed to regulate and the council in Ellen’s case is no exception. As a consequence, it has the full responsibility of providing accurate information to its clients to ensure that it protects all the business interests that come under its jurisdiction so that they can be successful. The council, through its employee, should have been more through in his assessment of the unique situation which Ellen faced in her attempt to start her meditation business and this would have worked well towards ensuring that she did not end up leasing a place that was detrimental not only to her business but also to her health. Her taking this case to court would be the best course of action because not to do so would be allowing for the infringement of her rights by the council whose responsibility it was to protect her business interests the provision of accurate information.7 Possible Setbacks In considering this problem, Ellen has to use every avenue available to her to ensure that she gets justice as well as compensation from the council for the damages she suffered. However, she has to consider various factors that are pertinent to her case. The first consideration that she has to make is the fact that while she may have indeed consulted the council employee on the diverse conditions that were available at her potential place of business and he gave his approval, the consultation which took place was oral and had no written records to support her claims for consultation. In addition, because she does not have any record of her consulting the council and gaining its approval to set up her meditation business, she would find it hard to prove her case in a court of law because the council might choose to declare that it was not consulted.8 Secondly, the fact that the council ended up approving the renovations next door to her business means that it acted in its rights and because Ellen had no written records, despite her consultation, she did not gain the official approval of the council to set up her business. It can be argued by the defendant, namely the council that she should have made sure that she had received proper confirmation from the council before going ahead with setting up her business. The Common Law The common law of torts, as used in Australia, award damages to individuals when the people authorised to provide them with information relevant to set up their business act negligently and as a result end up causing the said individual injury. 9While this is a simple means of ensuring that the persons who intend to start businesses are protected against any form of damages that might come their way in case of misinformation from local authorities. This is the case that happened with Ellen because while the council employee may have made a genuine mistake when he advised her that her place of business would be fine, it is the council’s duty to take up full responsibility for the damages that Ellen suffered.10 It is therefore the responsibility of the council to ensure that Ellen is well compensated for the damage that its employee caused her and this will likely bring her back to her financial position before the disaster befell her. Conclusion In conclusion, it can be said that if Ellen were to lay a claim against the council for the advice that she received from one of its employees, then the possibility of her receiving her claims would be greatly increased if she were to present satisfactory evidence against the council. While it is a fact that the council may deny her claims because of there being no written records of the advice that she was given, if she were to prove that she was indeed given the advice to set up her business in the premises by an employee of the council, then it is more likely than not that she would have a strong case. The fact that there are no written records concerning the advice she was given and that the council employee who gave her the advice may not even remember doing so may work against her in court. If this dispute is taken to court for arbitration, it is a possibility that the court will find that the claim made by Ellen is not considered feasible enough for consideration. This means that the council will not be legally bound to pay the claims that are made by the plaintiff. The solution of this problem will, therefore, remain between the two parties and this means that Ellen will have to negotiate directly with the council to ensure that an amicable solution is found. References Aroney, N. 2007, "Comparative Law in Australian Constitutional Jurisprudence", University of Queensland Law Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 317-340. Billings, P. 2011, "Juridical Exceptionalism in Australia: Law, Nostalgia and the Exclusion of 'Others'", Griffith Law Review, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 271-309. Campin, S., Barraket, J. & Luke, B. 2013, "Micro-Business Community Responsibility in Australia: Approaches, Motivations and Barriers", Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 489-513. Coggins, J.K. & Donohoe, S. 2012, "The validity of adjudicators' determinations containing errors of law", International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 116-125. Dahdal, A. & Gillies, P. 2009, "Characterising the Action In Rem in Australia and the Implications on International Commercial Arbitration", Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 271-290. Eden, Y. & Sonsino, D. 2006, "Probability Weighting in Damage Claiming Decisions", Journal of Insurance Issues, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 179-192. Edmond, G. 2004, "Thick Decisions: Expertise, Advocacy and Reasonableness in the Federal Court of Australia", Oceania, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 190-230. Munro, H. 2009, "The 'Good Faith' Controversy In Australian Commercial Law: A Survey Of The Spectrum Of Academic Legal Opinion", University of Queensland Law Journal, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 167-179. Rickett, C. 2005, "Unconscionability and Commercial Law", University of Queensland Law Journal, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 73-92. Torre, A. & Clifford, A. 2005, "Is the Treatment of Economic Loss by the Australian Courts in Torts Cases Anomalous?" European Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 145-164. Read More