Analysis of Commercial Law - Case Study Example

Commercial Law Case Study al Affiliation) Commercial Law Case Study Issue The issued here is whether John will succeed in establishing a breach of duty by Willow Council by alleging that he broke his arm because the Council did not fence the cliff well. Rules In most United States jurisdictions, there can be no liability in negligence unless the plaintiff establishes both that they were to be paid a duty of care by the defendant, and that the defendant fell foul of the breach of that duty. On the other hand, the defendant is in breach of duty towards the plaintiff if their behavior fell short of the standard expected under the prevailing situation ( Bastiat, 1950). Having recognized that there is a duty of care, the claimant must confirm that the defendant failed to do what the reasonable person, whether professional or child, would have done in the same circumstances. If the defendant fails to come up to the customary, this will be a violation of the duty of care as judged by reference to the following factors: What did the defendant know? This is to say that, the defendant will only be legally responsible if the reasonable person would have foreseen the loss or damage in the circumstances prevailing at the time of the alleged breach of duty. Secondly, the degree of jeopardy of the situation. The bigger the risk that severe harm can be brought by, the greater the safety measures that the defendant will be required to take (Jance, 1999). This is to say the when the risk involve is of little magnitude, the plaintiff is required to take his or her own precautions and any claim of breaching of duty that will be presented by the plaintiff will be overlooked. However, when the risk is of greater magnitude, the defendant will be liable. Thirdly, is the communal significance of the defendants doings. If the defendants actions give out a socially useful function then they may have been justified in taking greater risks. Lastly, a defendant complying with a general practice in his area of activity will usually be well thought-out to have met the standard of a reasonable man, except the court judges the practice itself to be negligent (Bradgate & Savage, 1991). Analysis In order for John to establish a breach of duty by the Willow Council, carried out himself as a responsible and reasonable person. However, John, who had drunk too much champagne, was conducting his activities in an open space where everyone could see him. He got out of a car and dared his to friends, Mason and Janice, to climb over a two meter fence, that prevented people from going beyond it, and walk to the edge of the cliff. His friends refuse but John climbs over the fence and walk to the edge of the cliff. He loses balance, fall off and breaks his leg. A court analyzing these particulars will apply the aforementioned essentials of breach of duty. The first aspect of just is what did the defendant know? John, the reasonable person, foresaw the danger of what he was exposing himself to. However, since he was drunk, he was driven by and unconsciousness that made him fall into the cliff (Duke, 2003). Thus, this does not satisfy the rule that if the reasonable person would have foreseen the loss or damage, the defendant will be liable. Secondly, the degree of exposure of the risk was minimal. The cliff was fenced with a two meter fence. It was therefore unlikely for someone to fall into the cliff. It is concluded exposure by the defendant was very minimal and according to the degree of jeopardy just element, the defendant was not liable to breach of duty (Evans, 1983). In addition, John was drunk when he fell and broke his leg. Drunkenness is not well received by society since it does not benefit them positively. I Willow Council was justifiable and did not establish a breach of duty owing to the fact that the defendant’s Lookout Point was a beautiful scenery area that attracted tourist, a communal service that had positive impacts. Finally, the defendant was not negligent when he fenced the cliff, he was taking precautions. He complied with the general practice of offering a good viewpoint to tourist attraction. As a result, he satisfies the final element of just, complying with a general practice in his area of activity(Joseph, 2005). Conclusion John will most likely not prevail in establishing the breach of duty because the Willow Council do satisfy majority of element of false accusation. The Willow Council, therefore, has not breached the duty, under the law. Issue The issue is whether Mason will succeed suing the French wine company for neglecting to give fundamental information pertaining to the cap of the bottle they use to package their champagne. Rules The court look at several elements of wine laws in order to determine whether a person has been falsely accused or is guilty. Wine labels are significant sources of information for clients since they tell the type and origin of the wine and give other fundamental information that would otherwise be significant to consumers. The label is often the sole resource a buyer has for evaluating the wine prior to buying it or using it. If the defendant has failed to put any useful information that the consumer needs, he is legally liable to any harm that will arise to the consumer as a result of using the product (Guy, 2003). Also courts also look at whether the undertaking in question took place in a setting where the plaintiff bought the champagne. The place of purchase is always considered more justifiable if a plaintiff raises concern about a given product. Under internal French by-law, the defendant is held responsible incase the accuser, on being harmed by their products, report with immediately else he legally justified. The jurisdiction hold that the nation’s by-laws stipulate that one can buy packaged liquor at government liquor supplies, or approved personal outlets, including specialty wine stores. Liquor is neither sold in grocery stores nor corner stores. Bars, clubs, restaurants, bars and stadiums sell drinks by-the-glass. One is not allowed to bring alcohol into the premises. Finally, licensees must follow regional liquor laws and policies, to guarantee secure and accountable liquor service and in addition, wine servers must refuse service to anyone who is under the influence of alcohol and ensure they leave safely (Grad, Goldberg, & Shapiro, 1971). Analysis Mason will not succeed in suing the French wine company. Elements of just that will used to pass judgment, must be established. Mason, who bought a wine from a French wine company, along the way, opens a cap, which is specially designed and has thereafter a cork stopper, and tries pour wine into a glass. On realizing nothing comes out, he shakes it a little and to his surprise, the cork stopper suddenly ejects and hit his nose. He sustains a blood nose and is in pain for three weeks. He goes to court and sue the company for not warning the consumers about the cap. In accordance to the courts decision, based on the rules, there were no labels on the champagne to warn about the model of the cap (Hilton, 1982). Therefore, the reasonable person was found justifiable on suing the French wine company, defendant is therefore liable for plaintiff’s nose injury. In looking at the other element of setting, the courts tend to favor people directly consume products where they purchased them. Mason bought the champagne along the way and took it in another place. The by-laws of the company they are legally liable to accidents and incidents that happen to consumers who are within the setting of their premises. The defendant succeeded in justifying the element of setting and hence found innocent by the court (Michele, 1952). Moreover, the element of just internal French by-law, the defendant is held responsible incase the accuser, on being harmed by their products, report with immediately was not met. Mason went to court three weeks after. This is not a reasonable act and it did not meet the standard and internal French by-laws. The plaintiff failed to meet this element of just and defendant thus satisfying the just of their own by-laws. The government’s by-law stipulating that selling of alcohol to them that are under influence of should not be allowed to buy alcohol. The reasonable person, based under this element of just, was innocent. He was not drunk while purchasing the wine. On the other hand, the court ruled out that the defendant was also innocent since he did not sell alcohol to a drunken consumer. Conclusion According to the court decision, based on the elements of just. Mason would most likely not win through in the courts because the French wine company satisfy most element of false accusations. The claim to sue French wine company was legal because the company had both not provide warning anywhere in the bottle about the cap. Additionally, the French company internal by-laws further solidifies the legality of the defense. Mason, therefore, has no recourse under the law. References Bastiat, F. (1950). The law. Irvington-on-Hudson, New York: Foundation for Economic Education. Bradgate, R., & Savage, N. (1991).Commercial law. London: Butterworths. Duke, R. (2003). The French wine trail. South Yarra: R.Duke Wine Company. Evans, D. G. (1983). A practitioners guide to alcoholism and the law. Center City, MN: Hazelden. Grad, F. P., Goldberg, A. L., & Shapiro, B. A. (1971). Alcoholism and the law. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications. Guy, K. M. (2003). When champagne became French: wine and the making of a national identity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hilton, H. (1982). 19 reasons why! the legal minimum age for purchasing alcoholic beverages in New York State is 19.. Albany: New York State, Division of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse. Jance, J. A. (1999). Breach of duty: a J.P. Beaumont mystery. New York: Avon Books. Joseph, R. (2005). French wine (Rev. ed.). New York: DK Pub.. Michele, A. (1952). Law students handbook. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Law School. Read More