The Concept of the Reasonable Person - Coursework Example

Introduction In the English Common Law, there are numerous tests that are conducted concerning the conduct of people in order to objectively ascertain if a given process or given act can be classified according to a given concept or theory. One of the most popular format that these tests take is the test for a “reasonable person” formerly known as the test of a “reasonable man”. In simple terms, this connotes what a reasonable person will do in a given set of circumstances. This paper will analyse the concept of the “reasonable person” and how it relates to the law of contract and the law of tort. It will critically evaluate the concept and how it intersects with these branches of law. The study will review the concepts in light of examples and other aspects of judicial precedence. The Doctrine of the Reasonable Person “The reasonable man [person] provides a legal standard against which a defendant’s culpability can be evaluated. If he is found to have behaved as a “reasonable” person would have under similar circumstances, he might be owed compensation rather than a punitive penalty.” (Donovan, 2013, p. 100). This means the concept of a reasonable person exists to provide a basic standard of a expectation that a person of a certain level of mental awareness should be able to foresee and deal with. This means that a reasonable person is deduced through an assessment of what an individual will have ideally considered in similar situations and contexts. The usage of the doctrine of reasonable person varies across different branches of law. It is utilised in criminal law and may be varied in setting the standard of care or standard of responsiveness based on the category of law that is being discussed. The Reasonable Man in the Law of Contract In the law of contract, the standard of a reasonable person is often invoked to examine the actions of a party in relation to a contract that is seen as an arms-length transaction or not. This is meant to ascertain if the contract was fair or not and hence, it provides guidance on how the law was put together and how the legal convention was utilised in dealing with people and in dealing with various processes that culminated in the formulation of the contract. A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two parties with an intention to create a legal relationship and it goes through the stages of offer, acceptance and mutual exchange of consideration (Hunt, 2014). A contract is voluntary and hence, each party must enter the contract willingly and without duress. Therefore, it can be stated that in cases where a person enters a contract with his own freewill and goes through the stages without any form of duress or manipulations, that individual might be said to be one that entered the contract at an arm’s length. Therefore, the fundamental area where the reasonable person standard is invoked in the law of contract is the formation of the contract (Perillo, 2000). “The reasonable person enters legal analysis not as a cultural stereotype but as an embodiment of the idea of fair terms of interaction.” (Ripstein, 2012, p. 255). This means that in utilising the reasonable man standard, a person will be assessed on a scale of fairness to ascertain what a basic person would have been sensitive to and would have recognised. This implies that the reasonable man assertion is important and vital in defining what a person will have done in such a situation, which will have been seen as an acceptable level of actions in relation to the circumstances at hand. Thus, in a contract, a reasonable person is one that is able to assert his needs and claims in a way and manner that is fair and enables him to attain the right and appropriate results. Representation A representation is a relevant statement that forms a term of a contract which is made that induces a contract to be formed (Hunt, 2014). Therefore, in cases where a representation is made that is false, we have a misrepresentation and misrepresentations render a contract void and the aggrieved party can either opt out of the contract and sue for damages for breach of contract and also sue for damages for deception under the law of tort. In order to set an objective standard for misrepresentation, the concept of reasonable person is put into place to set the framework within which the concept can be evaluated, analysed and reviewed and applied to various cases in the legal system. In the case of Museprime Properties V Adhill Properties [1990], there was a sale of three properties by auction and the particulars for rent and other statements made by the auctioneer was misrepresented in relation to rent reviews. When a company purchased the property and they found out that there were issues they did not know, they sued for rescission of the contract and the defendants contended that the misrepresentation was not of the nature that induced the aggrieved party to enter the contract. As a matter of fact, materiality has been a major defence in misrepresentation cases (Jennings V Broughton, 1854 & Smith V Chadwick, 1884). In both cases, the accused persons argued that the misrepresentation was not sufficient to induce or force the defendant to enter the contract. Thus, the courts have developed the test for a reasonable person to objectively ascertain the appropriateness of claims for misrepresentations. This culminated in rulings where the doctrine of the reasonable person is deduced and identified. And this showed that the concept of a reasonable person occurs where a person enters a contract on the basis of a given representation made by a party to the contract (Atwood V Small 1838). In such a situation, it must be proven that every reasonable person will have entered the contract due to such a representation. Anticipatory Breach & Discharge The doctrine of anticipatory breach is also one that can potentially create paranoid conclusions and requirements. Hence, there is the need for some kind of an objective test to analyse anticipatory breach in court. In Avery V Bowden (1855), the contract was meant to be fulfilled by the shipping of goods to Odessa. However, the Crimean war broke out and it became apparent that the contract was frustrated. Thus, from this precedence, the concept of anticipatory breach and the idea of a frustrated contract must be apparent to the “reasonable person” that the contract will not be discharged. Reasonable Person and the Law of Tort The concept of reasonable person has to do with the basic levels of reactions and response that a person should exhibit as a responsible person or a responsible citizen. In other words, as a humane member of modern society, the elements and aspects of a “reasonable person” must occur to a person in his or her actions or interactions. And this must guide a person’s conduct and steer the affairs and processes that a person is involved in to attain the best and most appropriate treatment. Schmidt states that “...the reasonable person standard is a test used to define the legal duty to protect ones own interest and that of others. The standard requires one to act with the same degree of care, knowledge, experience, fair-mindedness, and awareness of the law that the community would expect of a hypothetical reasonable person. The standard is objective in that it compares ones behaviour with that expected of a “reasonable person,” without regard to ones intention or state of mind.” (Schmidt, 2008) Thus, it can be said that the “reasonable person” sets a standard of responsiveness that is placed upon people in relation to their reactions to various circumstances and situations. This guides the court in defining what must be done in a given situation or circumstance. In the landmark ruling of Donoghue V Stevenson, the concept of a reasonable person was introduced into the analysis and evaluation of the concept of tort. This was inherent in Lord Atkins’ definition of the neighbourhood principle in judging the case. An extract of his statement indicated that: “The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyers question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable 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 them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question." This ruling automatically integrated the concept of a reasonable person in English and Scots law. This is because it defined the principle of neighbourhood and the concept of proximity. And in that case, it is imperative that a responsible person in the society will be able to identify who his neighbour is and try to desist from acts that will harm or hurt his neighbour. This forms the basis of the definition of a reasonable person in the law of tort. And this hinges on a number of factors: Proximity Where a reasonable person is doing things in the society under the law of tort, that individual must be able to sense the impacts and the consequences of his actions. This means that he must be able to ascertain if his actions are going to be potentially dangerous to others or not. And if they are, a reasonable person ought to take the time and the effort to prevent his actions from causing problems and issues for other members of the society. Foreseeability Once a person is able to analyse and identify the impact of the proximity of his actions to other people, the reasonable person will try to take actions and prevent the damages that may result from his actions to third parties due to the consequences of his action. This is because the society is not for one person. And a reasonable person must understand that he has neighbours and the neighbours’ right to enjoy resources in the society is central. Hence, there is the need for a person to be more careful and sensitive to the consequences of his actions and also be reasonable enough to take care not to harm or hurt others due to his enjoyment of the resources of the society. Fairness and Duty of Care The concept of duty of care is a central part of the law of tort. This is because in order to hold a person liable under the law of tort, there must be an objective standard and an objective situation that enables a duty to be imposed on a person and enforced. In Anns V Mertons Hospital (1978) and Caparo Industries V Dickman (1990), the ruling was that a person was to be held liable if that person had a duty of care and it will be fair to enforce it. The duty of care is imposed on the basis of whether the person acted as a reasonable or not. If a person acted as a reasonable person would do, it will be unfair to impose the duty of care and hence an action under tort is not likely to work. However, in cases where the person failed to act according to the actions of a reasonable person, a tort action is likely to work. Therefore, it must be stated that the concept of the reasonable person is central and vital in establishing a case in the law of tort. Conclusion The concept of a reasonable person forms the basis and foundation for the definition of a standard of care in various branches of law. Hence, the concept of reasonable person is a basic expectation that everybody must adhere to and it provides an insight into a kind of action that a normal and responsible person faced with the same circumstances would do. Hence, the concept of a reasonable person sets the standard for objective tests and reviews of the conducts and actions of people. In the law of contract, the concept of a reasonable person is often invoked to analyse the level of awareness and evaluate the kind of deception and dishonesty and its impacts on a given contract. This is often used in assessing misrepresentation and breach of contracts. Thus, to set objective standards, a judge will want to evaluate the actions of a party (usually an accused person) and compare its impact on a reasonable person. This gives the basis for providing damages where appropriate. In the case of the law of tort, a reasonable person forms the standard for evaluating whether an accused person owed the other a duty of care. And in doing this, the conduct of the accused person is compared to a reasonable person under the Donoghue V Stevenson rule and a duty of care can then be imposed. Bibliography Donovan, J. M. (2013). Legal Anthropology: An Introduction. London: Rowman Altamira. Hunt, M. (2014). Law of Contract. London: Sweet and Maxwell. Perillo, J. (2000). The Origins of the Objective Theory of Contract Formation and Interpretation. Fordham Law Review 69(2) , 427 - 477. Ripstein, A. (2012). Reasonable Persons and Private Law. In G. Bongiovanni, G. Gator, & C. Valentini, Reasonableness and Law (pp. 255 - 272). London: Springer. Schmidt, D. P. (2008). Reasonable Person Standard. In R. Kolb, Encyclopedia of Business Ethics & Society (pp. 19 - 22). London: SAGE Publications. Read More