Lovely Lighting Ltds Liability to Bart - Essay Example

? Of Portsmouth Word Count: 1537 Business And Employment Law 10 Advise To Bart In Relation To Contractual And Tortious Liability Arising From These Facts Bart’s Potential Contractual Liability To Poppy In law, Bart does not have any form of contractual liability towards Poppy. Each of the parties has not fully entered into an agreement of any kind. Further, Bart has not presented Poppy with a sound offer that can form grounds for proposal. In proposing to by the painting, Poppy is not in any way responding to an earlier offer hence this is not binding. Poppy simply seeks to buy the painting on display even though Bart refuses on the grounds that the product is solely for purposes of display. The fact that Bart is a retailer means that all freedoms to or not to sell any of the products to anyone is not in violation of a sales contract. In this case, Poppy cites offense when Bart does not seek to sell the painting1. To Poppy, the grounds for suing Bart include the fact that the painting on display is tallied as an offer. In the event of discriminatory sales, Poppy would use this as appoint to pin Bart and hence prove Bart’s liability. This is completely different form offering goods of poor quality and faulty. For Poppy, the contract consideration is lacking. Bart had not attached a price to the painting. The fact that the painting is on the shop’s wall does not in any way amount to an obligation for the trader to sell it leave alone accept her offer 2. The reason given for the trader’s decline does not include anything of discrimination and consumer rights violation. Evidently, the necessary components for there to be a valid contract are absent which greatly discredits the grounds for suing Bart. Lovely Lighting Ltd’s Liability to Bart under the Law of Contract and Tort In the case alongside, Lovely Lighting Ltd is not indemnified from any damages and injuries resulting from the products they sell. With this, all aspects of a contract are fulfilled and are met. For this reason, a contractual liability would only arise due to a breach of contract. Tort liability is that which arises from a civil wrong3. In this case, the first step is to establish if there is a contract between parties. For this reason, one of the issues arising includes the likely disputes that may arise between Bart and Lovely Lighting Ltd. A salesperson approached Bart and presented him with an offer to purchase a sign bearing the name of Bart’s business. Bart accepted the offer through agreeing to purchase the product, and signed a contract with the company with all the terms and conditions binding4. For an agreement to be considered a contract; there must be evidence of an offer (Lovely Lighting’s sign), acceptance (Bart’s signature on the sales contract), contractual intent (Bart’s motive to by the sign), legality of subject matter (the transaction is between legal bounds), and consideration (sign’s price)5. Bart was given an offer to purchase a sign bearing the name of his business, he accepted. There is the individually designed shop window lighting at the specified price which is the consideration. Lovely Lighting Ltd is a company doing legal business, and offered a legal business exchange. Both parties have the capacities to form contracts, and both parties showed intent to enter into the contract6. The case presented shows that Lovely Lighting Ltd does breach the contract and provided Bart with a product with a wrong name. This is a material breach since Lovely Lighting Ltd failed to use the right name of Bart’s business as agreed upon when signing the contract. Bart agreed to purchase a sign with the name ‘Artybarti’, which is his business’ name. The sign was designed with the name ‘Artyfarti’ which was not as per the contractual agreement. At this point, the obligation of the handling ot the sign rests with Lovely Lighting Ltd 7. Tort liability also comes into play a great deal. Lovely Lighting limited should be liable for selling defective products which led to damages and injury in Bart’s business and to Bart. What the company committed was a tort which is under strict liability. The product, on an attempt to place it in its rightful place, caught fire. Bart placed it on his shop window, and turned on the electrical power as required8. When Bart went to call the company representative to complain about the misspelled word on the sign, the sign caught fire and caused damages. A painting was ruined, and Bart had burns on his face and hands. This could only mean that the sign’s electrical system was defective. If it can be established that the sign had electrical defective system, Lovely Lighting Ltd should pay for the damages caused by the product as will be established by the court. Under Tort liability, Lovely Lighting should be sued for negligence, as well as under strict product liability9;10 A valid contract exists between these two parties. On its onset, Lovely Lighting Ltd is in breach of contract due to the fact that they have not availed a sign as recommended by Bart11. Subsequently, there are a number of areas which Bart would seek engage compensation 12. Bart could ask for a new sign as the previous one was wrong13. Alternatively, a new sign can be solicited on the grounds that the old one was faulty for which it was destroyed as it caught fire14. Bart can also claim damages from the painting which was rendered destroyed in the event of the fire as well as damages regarding personal injury induced on Bart. It is for this reason that a consideration of whether the contractual law generally entitles Bart to compensation for the particular areas. In the conclusion that Bart is ordinarily in a position of recovering damages in various areas, the terms will be considered in line with exonerating Lovely Lighting from any liability are valid while offering the protection which they provide in its advent. The understanding that Bart did not read the agreement is relevant15. For personal injury, the same process to that of areas of compensation stands even though this time it is within the tort law. Bart’s potential contractual liability to Rosie There are certain instances when a contract may exist even if the parties did not come to an agreement, and sign a document showing there is a contract that can be legal recognized. Such is the case with Bart and Rosie. Bart placed a poster on his window giving a reward to anyone who would return his pet dog. For this reason, there is an offer made by Bart to the public and which remains valid up to its time of expiry. However, for the contract to be valid, Rosie had to have been aware of Bart’s offer well before returning the lost dog. This is a component that would constitute to the contract’s validity16. However, this is not the case, Rosie is neither aware of the dog’s owner nor the offer made upon returning the dog to the shop. The fact that she only learns of the offer after returning the dog makes the contract invalid. In fact, the time period o the contract expires upon the delivery of the dog back to Bart. It is therefore expected, that Bart does not have any legal obligations towards Rosie. She even asked the customers around if the dog belonged to any of them. She then found a disc with Artybarti’s address and took the dog to Bart’s shop17. This is a clear indication that there is no binding contract. Bart did post a reward, but Rosie did not know of the reward. He may be liable to Rosie since Rosie brought the pet dog. There is however, no proof of detrimental reliance on Bart’s promise. It is indicated that Rosie saw the dog, while taking her coffee in a nearby cafe. She was bringing the dog to Bart’s shop, because she found an address on a collar disc and not because there was an offer of its recovery. However, in the case presented, he is not liable. Rosie seems to have been acting out of good faith18. References Secondary Sources: Beatty, J-F, & Samuelson S-S, Introduction to Business Law 4e (Cengage Learning, 2012) Helewitz J-A, Basic Contract Law for Paralegals (Aspen Publishers Online, 2010). Legal Information Institute (LII), ‘Tort’ (Article, 19 August 2010) accessed 5 December 2013. Legal Information Institute (LII), ‘Negligence’ (Article, 19 August 2010) accessed 5 December 2013. Legal Information Institute (LII), ‘Products Liability Law: An Overview’ (Article, 19 August 2010) accessed 5 December 2013. O'Sullivan, J, & Hilliard J, The Law of Contract (Oxford University Press, 2012) Brent Council, ‘Is the Trader Right?’ (Consumer Guide, April 2013)accessed 5th December 2013. Stone R, The Modern Law of Contract (Routledge, 2013). Markesinis, B. S., Unberath, Hannes. The German Law of Torts: A Comparative Treatise (New York: Hart Publishing, 2002)Harlow, C., Understanding Tort Law (New York: Sweet & Maxwell, 2005) Kodilinye, G., Commonwealth Caribbean Tort Law (New York: Routledge, 2009) Steele, J., Tort Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) Cooke, J., Law of Tort (New York: Pearson Education, 2007) Madden, M. S., Exploring Tort Law (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005) Cane., Peter. The Anatomy of Tort Law (New York: Hart Publishing, 1997) Cornford, T., Towards a Public Law of Tort (New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013) Harpwood, V.H. Modern Tort Law (New York: Routledge, 2008) Read More