Aspects of Contract and Negligence for Businesses - Assignment Example

Aspects of contract and negligence for businesses Task A contract, also known in other jurisdictions as an agreement is a legally binding agreement between two parties who create the agreement voluntarily with the intention of creating legal obligations between them. The elements of a contract are an offer, consideration, acceptance and mutuality (Cibinic, Nash & Nagle, 2006). An offer refers to the promise that a party makes to the other expressing his or her interest to engage in a particular activity. Acceptance on the other hand just as the name suggests refers to the acceptance of the terms just as promised by the first party. Chen-Wishart (2012), explains that the process of making and an offer and its acceptance follows the “mirror image” rule. This implies that the other party accepts the terms of the contract just as stipulated in the offer. Consideration is yet another element of a contract that refers to a substance of value the two parties promise to exchange in the course of the transaction. The consideration validates the existence of a contract. Also known as, the “meeting of the minds” mutuality refers to the consensus the two parties must have about the terms of the contract. Before creating a legally binding agreement, the two parties must understand and agree to the unique terms of the contract. The terms are vital aspects of a contract since they influence the entire process of undertaking the activity. The two parties must, therefore, understand the terms of the offer. At the acceptance stage, the second party promises to undertake the activity as stipulated in the terms. The offering party, on the other hand, promises not to change the original terms since the contract laws bar changing such terms unless the two parties agree to. This makes mutuality an important feature in contracts (Frey & Frey 2001). The terms that Joe and Dilon set for their contract have some aspects of ambiguity. As explained earlier, in the creation of a contract the terms must always follow the mirror image rule. The mirror image rule dictates that the offer and the acceptance must never vary the terms of the contract. In the case, Dilon’s terms dictate that Joe must sell the products at the original quoted price. After filling the form, which indicated his acceptance of the offer, Joe provides his terms in which he indicates that the prices may increase. Such is a bargain, and the terms of the contract between the two parties are ambiguous. Despite the ambiguity between Joe and Dilon, the two form a legally binding contract. Joe must make the running machines and deliver them to the gym within the set time. However, the two are likely to conflict on payment since they both had varying terms regarding the amount to pay for the purchase of the products. In case of such ambiguities, the party whose terms come last and enjoy mutual agreement between the two will always suffice. In this case, Dilon’s terms will prevail despite Joe’s terms having the prevail clause. Such is the case since Joe did not bring his terms before the two formed the contract. He instead prints the terms on a separate form and sends them to Dilon alongside the form he had signed accepting the contract. This implies that he accepted the terms set by Dilon a feature that makes his terms null and avoid (Bar & Drobnig, 2004). There was no contract formed between Joe and PartsCo until the day he went to purchase the parts. At that time, the contract was the purchase of the parts at $1,500. As explained earlier, a consideration is a vital element in a contract since it validates the creation of one. Joe went to the company’s website to see the cost of the parts. As such, Joe was window shopping and did not make any commitment to purchase the products. The fact that he did not exchange anything of value with the company while checking the prices on the website implies that he did not create any contract with the company. Additionally, he did not express any interest in creating any contract since he did not contact the company until the day he went to pick the parts (Schneid & Schumann 2006). Joe cannot therefore enforce the price of $1000 for a number of reasons. Firstly and more importantly is the fact that the company stated clearly that they do not guarantee the price. The inclusion is a vital feature in the debate. It forms part of the terms of the contract that any customer would try to create with the company. Additionally, Joe did not create any contract with the company until he went to purchase the products. This limits his bargain to the new price the company presents. Chloe went to see the computer and gave Fabian an offer. She offered to purchase the price at $80. Additionally, she tells Fabian to inform her if he is willing to accept the offer by Thursday. Fabian posts a letter on Wednesday to Chloe expressing his acceptance of the offer. A contract becomes legally binding as soon as the accepting party posts the acceptance letter. This implies that Chloe and Fabian created a contract. Such is not the case between Fabian and Jenny. Jenny had posted her offer to Fabian. She offered to purchase the product at the set price. However, before Fabian receives and responds to the offer, she calls to ask Fabian to ignore any letter he may receive from her. The call shows her revocation of the offer she made to Fabian. As such, there is a contract between Fabian and Chloe and none between Fabian and Jenny. The impact of the contract between Chloe and Fabian implies that Chloe must purchase the product despite the fact that she had changed her mind about purchasing the product. By the time Chloe changed her mind about the product, Fabian had accepted the offer and posted his acceptance letter (Huber, 1990). Furthermore, Chloe did not inform Fabian about her change of mind. As such, Fabian operates blindly knowing that Chloe is a potential client whose offer remains viable. Chloe is therefore under a legal obligation to purchase the computer from Fabian. Task 2 Negligence refers to the inability of an individual to exercise a degree of care that any reasonable person in the same situation would take. An authority must always take care of certain features of the setting in order to safeguard the safety of the people. Liability of negligence cases rely on the nature of the relationship between the two parties involved in the cases. Liability of negligence arises from the lack of duty of care. Duty of care refers to the legal obligation the state imposes on individuals requiring them to adhere to particular standards of reasonable care. Lack of such reasonable care would cause harm to others. A tort, on the other hand, refers to a civil wrong that causes harm or loss to others thereby resulting in a legal liability in tort. A liability in tort, therefore, refers to the responsibility that one takes when they commit a civil wrong. The liability is a form of compensation they give to the victims of their actions. Neither the sign in the supermarket nor Tim’s excuses are valid. While the sign warns shoppers to take care, the management of the supermarket has an obligation to make the place safe for the shoppers. The facility could have a leaking roof, but the management had the duty of care to dry the patches of water that leak to the floor. The relationship between Holly and Tim is legitimate. Holly is a shopper at the supermarket. As the manager of the supermarket, Tim had the du of care. The duty of care obligated him to take care of the facility by making it safe and secure for shopper. His inability to order for the cleanliness of the supermarket made the place slippery thereby enhancing Holly’s fall. The failure by the management of the supermarket to dry the patches of leaked water on the floor was a form of negligence given the fact that the patch of water had stayed on the floor for a while. Dex is a shopper just like any other. Supermarkets are public places and the management must therefore always enhance the safety of the environments. This implies that Dex can make a claim for negligence. However, the management of the supermarket would have a number of defenses most of which are admissible and would, therefore, acquit the supermarket of any wrongdoing. Key among the defenses is the fact that Dex was under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol impairs judgments. His drunk state was responsible for Dex’s recklessness at the supermarket and inability to notice the patch of water that other shoppers had succeeded in evading throughout. Additionally, the management of the firm had a sign that warned against carelessness at the mall. Dex jumped into the patch of water willingly. Such was an act of negligence since he failed to care for his safety and wellbeing. The sign would help exonerate the company given the fact that Dex’s carelessness resulted in immense damages at the facility (McKendrick, 2014). The supermarket is vicariously liable for Tim’s behavior. Vicarious liability is a form of liability in which a person is liable for either the omissions or actions of another. An employer is always vicariously liable for the actions of an employee depending on the nature of the actions. The principle of separation in business management separates the business from its owners and managers. This implies that a business is a legal entity that can take care of its legal obligations. Tim is the manager of the supermarket. As such, his actions protect the interest of the business. He punched Dex, who had caused immense damage to the supermarket’s assets. As such, his actions sought to protect the interests of the business. The grudge between Tim and Dex was not personal. Instead, he acted in his official capacity as the manager of the supermarket. In this context, the supermarket becomes vicariously liable for the actions of Tim. Dex will not sue Tim but will sue the supermarket for the injuries he acquired at the facility including the punches. In case he sues Tim personally for the punches, Tim would lay claim to the supermarket’s vicarious liability for his actions. The local council is responsible for maintaining the pavement. As such, when Holly trips and injures her leg while walking home, the council becomes automatically responsible for the fall. However, the nature of the accident would exonerate the Council from any liability. The surface of the pavement should have a degree of smoothness to enhance the ease of movement. Holly is a taxpayer in the country and, therefore, deserves a good quality pavement that does not cause her to trip and injure herself. However, the council has a number of defenses key among which is the nature of Holly’s trip. The council will compel the court to determine the nature of Holly’s trip before enforcing any liability. Holly could have tripped because she was enraged and was not seeing properly. The anger and the sequence of activities on the evening must have impaired Holly’s judgment. Holly had walked on the same pavements before and had not tripped. She even walked on them while walking to the chemist. She therefore tripped on her way back owing to her inability to concentrate on the walk. A council officer cannot be vicariously responsible for the slip. The nature of the slip is ambiguous. As explained earlier, Holly had walked on the same pavements without tripping. In fact, she walked on the same pavement while going to the chemist and did not trip. The fall is, therefore, unique, and Holly is to blame for the fall. Additionally, the employers should always take the blame for the actions of the employee, not the other way round (Street, 1980). The council officer would require resources from the council in order to repair the pavement in cases of major damages. The officer does not purchase such vital resources with his or her money. Such basic arguments would exonerate the council from any blame. Bibliography Bar, C. ., & Drobnig, U. (2004). The interaction of contract law and tort and property Law in Europe: A comparative study. München: Sellier European Law Publ. Bar, C. ., & Drobnig, U. (2004). The interaction of contract law and tort and property Law in Europe: A comparative study. München: Sellier European Law Publ. Busnelli, F. D., & Spier, J. (2003). Unification of tort law: Liability for damage caused by others. The Hague [u.a.: Kluwer Law Intern. Chen-Wishart, M. (2012). Contract law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Christensen, S., Duncan, W. D., & Walsh, T. (2004). Professional liability and property transactions. Annandale [u.a.: Federation Press. Cibinic, J., Nash, R. C., & Nagle, J. F. (2006). Administration of government contracts. Washington, D C: George Washington University, National Law Center, Government Contracts Program. Frey, M. A., & Frey, P. H. (2001). Essentials of contract law. Albany, NY: West/Thomson Learning. Huber, P. W. (1990). Liability: The legal revolution and its consequences. New York: Basic Books. McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: Text, cases, and materials.London: OUP. Schneid, Thomas D., & Schumann, Michael S. (2006). Legal Liability: A Guide for Safety And Loss Prevention Professionals. Jones & Bartlett Pub. Street, T. A. (1980). Theory and principles of torts. Buffalo, NY: Hein. Read More