Legal Scenario: Bistrot Pierre - Case Study Example

LEGAL SCENARIO: BISTROT PIERRE CASE (school) Legal Scenario: Bistrot Pierre Is Bistrot Pierre contractually bound to pay the extra £3,000 to Buildrite Ltd? No, Bistrot Pierre was not contractually bound to pay the extra 3,000 pounds to Buildrite, Ltd. because Buildrite was in violation of the contractual agreement with Bistrot Pierre. A contract, according to English contract law is a “promise or set of promises which the law will enforce” (Pollock, as cited by Collins, 2008, p. 211). The basis of interpreting contracts in England and Wales is on what appears in the text of the contract. The basis of the interpretation is the simplest interpretation or meaning of the contract. Moreover, the “normal meaning of the text here seems to offer, atleast apparently the most reliable basis for judicial interpretation of contracts” (Collins, 2008, p. 211). The external appearance of the contents of the contract is given premium here because social and economic dictates require the protection of the plain wordings of contracts. The contractual agreement between the two parties created rights and obligations which are enforceable by the courts (von Bar, Drobnig, and Alpa, 2004, p. 66). In this case, the contractual relations between Buildrite and Bistrot created the rights and obligations for both parties – for Buildrite to build the extension by November 15 and for Bistrot to pay the price agreed upon. The fact that the wages of the workers were only at minimum wage and the labourers left the employ of Buildrite does not play into the contract between Bistrot and Buildrite. The issue of employment between Buildrite and its employees is not included in the terms of the contract between Bistrot and Buildrite. It is the obligation of Buildrite to fill in its employee vacancies without having to charge Bistrot for the cost of the additional employees. The two parties did not include in the terms of their contract the fact that Bistrot would have to pay additional cost should Buildrite’s workers leave the firm and leave the latter shorthanded. The elements of a contract are: agreement, consideration, intention to create legal relations, capacity, consent, and form. The contracting parties agree on and accept the terms of the agreement (Mead & Sagar, 2005, p. 38). Beyond such terms and agreement, the contract cannot apply and a possible breach of contract would be seen if either party does not fulfil his end of the contract. In the above case, the parties agreed on the terms of the contract and nowhere in the contract does it indicate that Bistrot will cover additional cost for the renovation. The consideration is usually monetary and the amount has already been agreed upon by the contracting parties (Mead & Sagar, 2005, p. 38). The intention to create legal relations should be apparent from the actions of the parties (Mead & Sagar, 2005, p. 38). The parties must agree to enter the agreement in order to create a legal relationship between them. In this case, the parties very much intended to make their contract legal – with Bistrot paying Buildrite to finish the renovation of the restaurant for a certain price or consideration. There must also be consent between the consenting parties; neither one of the parties should have been coerced into the contract (Mead, Sagar, & Bampton, 2009, p. 44). The contracting parties must also have the capacity to contract, meaning, they must be of legal age and have the mental capacity to contract (Mead, Sagar, 2005, p. 38). Finally, the form of the contract is the document upon which the contract is set forth by the parties. In the case at bar, both parties gave their consent and both of them had the capacity to contract. Based on the above considerations, Bistrot had no contractual obligation to pay the additional 3,000 pounds for Buildrite to deliver his end of the contract. Instead, Buildrite can be deemed in breach of contract or liable for non-performance of his duties in the contract. A right of action can be filed by Bistrot for such breach (Rossini, 1998, p. 21). (2) Is Bistrot Pierre contractually bound to the respondents of the sale promotion on the “Great Deals” web-site? Bistrot is contractually bound to the respondents of the sale promotion on the “Great Deals” website. In much the same vein as the discussion in the first question, there is a contract between Bistrot Pierre and with the “Great Deals” website. The elements of a contract are present in this case. There is an agreement between the parties – for Bistrot to advertise its restaurant in the website in exchange for an 80% discount on Christmas meals for website registered users. The contracting parties gave their consent freely to the terms of this contract, and these contracting parties were both legally capacitated to enter into the contract (Barker, 2007, p. 103). The consideration offered by Bistrot for the advertisement was the 80% discount. Moreover, both contracting parties intended their agreement to be legal and binding. Since the contract contains all the elements of a valid contract – it is also enforceable by the courts (Barker, 2007, p. 103). Bistrot therefore has a legal obligation to perform its duty in this case; just as Great Deals also has the duty to advertise the restaurant in its website. The contract is not dependent on unforeseen circumstances which would make the contract seem unreasonable (Goldberg, 1989, p. 158). If the contract was dependent on the number of meals given out for the day or on whether or not Bistrot would earn profit, then they should have specified such terms in their contract. As it was, the discount yielded more than what the restaurant expected, but this unexpected occurrence did not, in any way, invalidate the existence or enforceability of the contract. Bistrot Pierre is therefore contractually bound to the respondents of the sale promotion on the “Great Deals” website. (3) Is Bistrot Pierre legally bound to compensate the local dignitary for her broken ankle? Bistrot Pierre is legally bound to compensate the local dignitary for her broken ankle. This is a clear case of personal injury from which a tortuous liability can be claimed by the local dignitary (Honore, 1999, p. 78). Tortious liability arises “from the breach of duty primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages” (Winfield, as cited by Tunc, 1983, p. 7). In its simplest breakdown, tort is a breach of duty to other people, by which the courts, based on fault can impose liability. Tort is primarily concerned with granting compensation for personal injury caused by negligence (Steele, 2007, p. 846). Negligence is defined as the “failure to do or recognise something that a reasonable person would do or recognise, or do something that a reasonable person would not do” (McCall & Tankersley, 2003, p. 35). Negligence, in effect, is a provision of the law which seeks to protect individuals against economic loss and against property and personal injury. This case falls under the purview of tortuous liability because it fulfils the three main elements of a legal tortuous action. First, there was a duty of care on the part of the defendant; second, the defendant did not fulfil such duty; and third, the claimant suffered injury or damage as a result of the defendant’s breach (Harpwood, 2008, p. 126). In the first requirement, the courts had occasion to rule and in a speech by Lord Atkin in the Donahue v. Stevenson (1932) case, he proclaimed that: “you must take responsible care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have then in contemplation as being so affected...” In the case at bar, the organizers, Bistrot Pierre, had the responsibility of reasonably foreseeing that the cable wires may cause injury to the people attending the show. The second factor to be considered is the breach of duty on the part of the defendant. This is apparent when the standard of care that is reasonably required from the defendant falls below the expected (Green, 2005, p. 89). The standard of conduct in most tort cases is the ‘reasonable man’ test where, in the case of Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856), Baron Alderson stated that, “negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or do something, which a prudent and reasonable man would not do”. A reasonable man would see a cable wire in a place where many people would likely walk by and he would see that someone might trip over the wires. Such a reasonable man would therefore implement measures in order to prevent such an occurrence. He would likely tape the wires to the floor to keep them stationary or would move them to a place where people would not trip on them. Lastly, the courts also need to consider whether or not the damage was caused as a result of the defendant’s breach. In other words, the claimant must prove that he would not have experienced the incidents had it not been for the negligence if the defendant (Lunney & Oliphant, 2008, p. 227). This is also known as the “but for” test which was applied in the case of Burnett v. Chelsea Hospital Management Committee (1968). The degree of probability must also be calculated. In effect, considering the other causes of injury, the claimant must prove that the defendant’s negligence caused his injury (Wilsher v. Essex Area Health Authority, 1988). The remoteness of the damage must also be ascertained. In this case, the defendant can only be held liable for the effects of his actions which could have been reasonably foreseen. In the case at bar, the negligence of Bistrot was the cause of the dignitary’s accident. Had it not been for Bistrot’s negligence, the local dignitary would not have been injured. Based on the above discussion, Bistrot is therefore legally bound to compensate the local dignitary for her broken ankle. The law of torts and damages, as well as personal injury is in place in order to ensure that people can assert their rights and can be compensated for damages, loss, or injury caused by another person’s negligence (Ministry of Justice, 2009). This law ensures that the adequate remedies are in place in instances where civil wrongs are committed based on statutes or common law. Works Cited Barker, D. (2007) Law Made Simple, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1968) 1 All ER 1068 Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781 Collins, H. (2008) Standard contract terms in Europe: a basis for and a challenge to European contract law, London: Kluwer Law International Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) UKHL 10 Green, D. (2005) Torts Law Q&A 2005-2006 6/e, London: Routledge Publishers Goldberg, V. (1989) Readings in the economics of contract law, UK: Cambridge University Press Harpwood, V. (2008) Modern Tort Law, London: Routledge Honore, T. (1999) Responsibility and fault, England: Oxford University Press Law of tort and damages, including personal injury (2009) Ministry of Justice, viewed 04 December 2010 from http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/law-of-tort-and-damages.htm Lunney, M. & Oliphant, K. (2008) Tort Law: Text and Materials, Oxford: Oxford University Press McCall, R. & Tankersley, C. (2003) Phlebotomy Exam Review. London: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Mead, L., Sagar, D., Bampton, K. (2009) CIMA Official Learning System Fundamentals of Ethics, Corporate Governance and Business Law, UK: Elsevier Health Sciences Mead, L. & Sagar, D. (2005) Business Law Paper C5, UK: Elsevier Health Sciences Rossini, C. (1998) English as a legal language, London: Kluwer Law International Steele, J. (2007) Tort Law: Text, Cases, & Materials, London: Oxford University Press Tunc, A. (1983) International encyclopedia of comparative law, Volume 11, Part 1, London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Von Bar, Drobnig, U., & Alpa, G. (2004) The interaction of contract law and tort and property law in Europe: a comparative study, Germany: European Law Publishers Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988) AC 1074 Read More