Contract Law and Tort Law Problem - Essay Example

Contract Law and Tort Law Problem Task Contract Law and Tort Law Problem consider the strengths of any civil claims that may be available for Jane, Bob, Sam, Dave and Mel to pursue. Introduction This is a case of tort law and contract law, which mainly revolves around the defendant, Andy. the case facts of the law provides that Andy breached both the law of torts, as well as, the law of contracts, and as such, has to bear the responsibilities of all the damages caused to Jane, Bob, Sam, Dave, and Mel. This whole experience begins after Andy finds the car he just wanted at HOTMOTORS. The sales representative at the auto shop advices him to buy the car as it is a hot bargain, as it only had one previous careful owner and just needed a replacement of a new gearbox. He also adds that the car had only done 10,000 miles. These facts about the car impress Andy, and another seconding from his best friend Sam on the car, he accepts to purchase it for £8,000. Andy leaves HOTMOTORS happy after getting what he wanted and thinking it was a hot bargain, only to later realize that the sales representative fooled him into buying an old junk. For instance, that very day he causes an accident when he bumps into Jane, the motorist in front of him at a road junction near his home, after the brakes of the car failed to work properly, and thus, he has to pay up Jane for the damages caused on her car. In addition, he experiences more problems with the car in a four weeks period after its purchase, inclusive of an unusual wear of the tyres, which then requires a replacement with four new ones at the cost of £360. The HOTMOTORS garage also fails to fix the problems on Andy’s car when he takes it to them owing to the backlog of work. After this incident, Andy realizes the true condition of his car when an experienced mechanic at the garage looks and examines its state. Dave confirms that to Andy everything contrary to what he previously believed was the true condition of the car. For starters, the car is worth nothing, but a mere £40 as scrap because of its old conditions and demanding repairs such as a 100,000 mileage, requirement of a new engine and a gearbox. Andy refuses to pay the mechanic’s bill of £150 out of anger, and drives out to his friend’s house who advised him to buy the car. He smashes his friend’s car, a new BMW causing him damages worth £3,000 in retribution, and then drives to HOTOMOTORS where, finding the sales representative, punches him in the nose causing him to bleed for lying to him about the condition of the car. The wife of the sales representative faints after witnessing the bloody state of her husband falls down and suffers a concussion leading to a permanent memory loss. Although the situation preceding all these events may have some sense of justification, because it all began after the sales representative engaged lies in order to make a sale, the actions following Andy’s purchase of the case were in total breach of the law of torts and the law of contract. The law of torts is a body of obligations, rights, and remedies applicable by courts in civil proceedings in order to provide relief to persons who suffer harm from the wrongful acts committed by others. As such, in this case, Andy breached the law of torts owing to the damages and injuries caused by his actions. He also breached the law of contract, which is a body of law governing all oral and written agreements associated with the exchange of goods and services, properties, and money. In this case, there is a breach of both the limitations of actions clause in a contract, as well as, the nature of contractual obligations. Consequently, every plaintiff in the case has a legal right to seek redress in court and claim compensation for the damages caused or suffered owing to the actions and deeds of Andy. However, it is also imperative to comprehend the facts leading to such actions, the lies told by the sales representative at HOTMOTORS line in (Harry v Dyke (1979) R T R 2650) case. Legal Redress for Jane Jane in this case is the plaintiff. Andy knocked her car from behind and caused her reasonable damages. According to the traffic rules governing motorists on the roads and highways, any motorist who knocks the other motorist from behind always bears the responsibility for the accident. As such, Andy was wrong for knocking Jane from Behind even if it was not intentional. This is a charge of negligence on Andy’s part for not confirming the true condition of his car before taking it o the road, as was the case of (Donoghue V Stevenson). It was imperative for Andy to take the car for a test drive first after purchasing it in order to confirm if it was in the right conditions, before taking it on the road. During this test drive, he would be able to recognize that the brakes of the car were faulty, and as such, fix them before using the car. However, his failure to confirm the conditions of the car before taking it to the road lays all the blame of the accident on him, in addition to the traffic rules, and as such, has to pay Jane for all the damages and los she suffered after Andy dents her car from behind. Legal Redress for Bob Andy saw a car at HOTMOTORS and decided to purchase it after Bob, the sales representative at the garage, convinces him, together with his friend, Sam. The sales representative, Bob, made a valid offer to Andy concerning the sale of the car, and told him the conditions of the car, though not specifically as expected in the law of contract, as in (Scammel and Nephew Ltd. v. Ouston). however, he made the offer to a particular person, Andy, all in consideration f the legalities of the contract law which requires an offerer to make an offer to a specific person (Boulton v Jones) and the other party has to accept the offer. He told Andy that the car had only one previous user who was a careful motorist, and as such, guaranteed the condition of the car to be of good quality. In addition, he commented that the car had a mileage of only 10,000 miles, and the only thing that needed replacement in the car was its gearbox. Andy accepted this offer for sale as in (the Crown v Clarke) case. However, all the information given to him about the condition of the car was wrong except for one, that of the car’s need to replace a gearbox (Blomax v Sanders (1825) 1 585). This he later confirmed when he visited the garage once more in a month’s time after the car suffered more complications. the intention of Bob, the sales representative at HOTMOTORS was to get rid of the car at a lucrative price, and as such, he lied to Andy to convince him that the car was in good condition while he knew the truth that the car was a mere piece of junk. As such, Bob breached the “Honorable Pledge Clause” in (Rose and Frank v Crompton Bros) in intention by lying to Andy about the condition of the car. In addition, Bob also breached the law of contract in misrepresentation by telling half-truths within a contract, like was the case of (Dimmock v Hallent). This is fraudulent misrepresentation, and as such, Bob is liable for breaching the law of contract, as well as, the tort law by selling to Andy intentionally a junk machine in the (Derry v Peek) case. On realizing the kind of lie told to him by the sales representative at HOTMOTORS, Andy had various legal avenues to seek redress for breach of the contract and tort law. As such, there were a number of reasonable steps for him to take as the innocent party in the contract instead of resulting to violence to seek retribution, as in the case of Musa (Hassa v Hunt and another). He goes back to garage very angry after realizing the white lies told to him in the conditions of the car by Bob, calls him a liar, and then punches his nose. Bob can sue Andy for verbal assault as he called him a liar at his place of work and in front of his customers, which was an act of defamation as in the case of (Meades’s Case (1823) Law C.C 184). However, Andy can defend himself from these charges by claiming that his statements were on fair comment, especially considering the lies previously told to him by Bob before he bought the car. As such, his comments, and his calling Bob a liar at his place of work was an opinion on facts that are true, as in (Merivale V Carson (1838) 3 N & P 564) case. However, the assault by Andy on his nose, which causes a nose bleeding is the wrong act committed by Andy. This is assault or battery in the case of Andy, and as such, he has to pay for the damages caused to Bob after his assault (Pursell v Horne (1838) 3 N & P 564). Bob suffers both physical, as well as, emotional damages after the assault from Andy. For instance, Bob suffers a nervous experience with strangers after the blow on his nose that he suffered from Andy and leaves his job due to the new experience caused. Consequently, Bob has the right to seek legal redress from Andy for the damages her suffered, one for the punch to his nose, and second for losing his job after the grotesque condition placed in by Andy after his attack. Legal Redress for Sam Sam is the bosom friend of Andy, and as friends, Andy asked Sam’s opinion on the car he saw at HOTMOTOS before purchasing it. Sam was the car and convinced his friend that it was the best bargain, and as such, encouraged him to purchase the car. However, Sam committed undue influence in the law of contract whereby he convinced his friend to buy a junk instead of a good quality car, as was the case in (Willians v Boyley). However, after Andy discovers that his friend gave him wrong advice on the condition of the car, he gets angry and goes on a revenge rampage. For instance, he drives into Sam’s compound and finds his new BMW parked at the lawn. Andy smashes this BMW and causes Sam a damage worth £3,000. This damage on his car causes Sam to suffer a prolonged bout of depression, which is also risky to his health condition. Sam can seek legal redress in court against his friend Andy owing to the damages he suffered out of his actions. For instance, Andy was liable for trespass and forced entry when he entered his friend’s home to smash his car, as was the case in (Perera v Vandiva). Furthermore, the act of smashing his car was a specific tort committed by Andy (Wilkinson v Downtown). As such, Andy is legal liable for the £3,000 damage caused on his friend’s car, together with the prolonged bout of depression his friend suffers after the action. This is because the smashing of the car is what led to the depression, and as such, he has to account for the damages therein. Legal Redress for Dave Dave is the mechanic who checked Andy’s car at the garage in a month’s time from purchase. He is the one who discovered that Bob lied to Andy concerning the true condition of the car. For instance, the mileage was 100,000 miles instead of the 10,000 as informed earlier. Furthermore, he needed to change the engine of the car, and not just the gearbox alone as told by the sale representative alone. He also confirms to Andy that his £8,000 was a mere junk, and only worth £40 as scrap. Dave charges Andy £ 150 for his services, which Andy refuses to pay, in anger after realizing the loss incurred from the lies told to him by the sales representative at HOTMOTORS. However, Dave can sue Andy for a breach of contract and demand damages in lieu of £ 150 bill he charged him for the services. Legal Redress for Mel Mel is bob’s wife, the sales representative who sold Andy a junk car for £ 8,000. Mel suffers a permanent memory loss after seeing her husband’s bloody face when Andy punched him on the nose. This was after she faints and hits her head hard on the floor. Although Andy did not cause this injury directly, he contributed a great deal to its occurrence, and as such, partly liable for the damages. References Barnes, D. & Best, A. (2007). Basic Tort Law: Cases, Statutes, and Problems. Amsterdam: Aspen Publishers Online. Bonell, M. (2009). An International Restatement of Contract Law: The Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts. New York: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Bublick, E. M., Dobbs, D.B. & Hayden, P. T. (2009). Torts And Compensation: Personal Accountability And Social Responsibility For Injury American Casebook Series; West. New York, NY: APA Publishers. Frey, M. & Frey, P. (2000). Essentials of Contract Law. Stamford, Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Harlow, C. (2005). Understanding Tort Law. Bloomington, Indiana: Sweet & Maxwell. Helewitz, J. (2010). Basic Contract Law for Paralegals. Amsterdam: Aspen Publishers Online. Howells, G. & Schulse, R. (2009). Modernizing and Harmonizing Consumer Contract Lawsellier. Paris: European Law Publ. Kenneth, S.W (1995). Contributory Negligence: Conceptual And Narrative Issues; Philosophical Foundations Of Tort Law. Oxford: Claredon Press Lands, W. & Posner, R. (1987). The Economic Structure of Tort Law. Harvard: Harvard University Press. McKendrick, E. (2012). Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stuart, M. (2005). Exploring Tort Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, G. (2003). Tort Law in America: An Intellectual History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More