4 Different Examples of Business Law - Coursework Example

Business Law: Case Studies Question This case of Freda gives rise to some conflicting arguments regarding the liability of the hotel on the security of customer’s valuables. Since the hotel management had displayed a notice which says “The Gullies Hotel and its management would not be held liable for the safety of any valuable left in the guest’s room. The hotel has safe deposit boxes at the reception”, they can refuse the legal liability. Under the common law it is clearly stated that the hotel will be responsible for loss of property for customer unless it is caused by an act of nature or fault of the customer. Here the hotelier can argue for a fault committed by Freda that she neglected the notice issued by the hotel management. Hence the hotel is free of any liability caused by the theft. Even though the hotel can rule out any liability based on this law, they have to comply with certain statutory requirements to stand this claim. This will vary depending upon the statutes. For example, “the Rhode Island statute states that if the hotel provides a safe for depositing money, jewelry, watches, and the like, and notifies guests by posting a conspicuous notice to that effect, and guests fail to deposit their valuables in the safe, the hotel is not liable for any loss to the valuables”( as cited in Adjusters International). But the statute of New Mexico contradicts this and charges the liability on the hotel. In addition to this, it should be noted that if at any stage it is found that the hotel had not followed the requirements stated by the statute, the hotel will be held responsible for the loss inherited to the customer. Different from these arguments Robert.E.Gluck adverts to “Negligent security law” which describes a situation when one become a victim of an attack on someone’s property. This attack covers rape, robbery, gunfire taking place in a commercial establishment. This law maintains that it is the responsibility of the owner to provide enough security to the property and the customers (Ibid). Also he suggests that the hotel should show more responsibility in safeguarding the customer’s personal details and the room numbers. Along with these he warns about after effects of the faults in the construction of the building. According to him, these designs have an immense role in avoiding criminal activities by providing enough lighting and easy monitoring of security personnel (Ibid). However the notice served by hotel management provides them a leading edge over Freda in this case. Hence the hotelier can claim the theft as an after effect of faults committed by the customer. Question 2 The doctrine of precedent states that the courts are bound within prescribed limits by previous decisions of higher courts. It is otherwise known as “stare decisis”. These words originated from Latin and mean that “standing by of previous decisions”. In a broader sense, it describes that the court should abide by precedent and not disturbs settled cases. Once a clause of the law has been settled in a certain case, that law must be followed in all future cases having the same facts. In addition, cohesion to precedent helps in achieving and upholding stable laws and thus contributes to the high security of private rights. Also it maintains that the law develops accordingly with the changing comprehensions of the society and therefore more precisely reverberates the thoughts and expectations of the society. As the precedent is established by comparing different cases there will always be a question that how important are the differences between the types. So in those cases, one can’t consider the cases are similar just because the facts are obviously similar. In such cases we can not go for a formalized solution and one need to think about the after effects it produces. In order to implement the doctrine of precedent effectively, it is essential to define what a point of law states. So it is inevitable that a proper assessment and analysis of facts is needed before the application of these laws. Based on the available facts and strength of evidence, the judge will decide the truth and apply the doctrine of precedent. If the case is more similar to the previous versions, then it will be easier for the judge to apply the law. And obviously it will be more difficult for the judge if the subject is more different from the existing precedents. While delivering the judgments, the judges will draw out the reasons of the judgment and these reasons which necessitate the judgment amounts to “ratio decidendi” of the case. There is another set of facts which are known as “obiter dicta”, which amounts to the stated things in the course of judgment but are irrelevant to the decision. Hence it should be noted that the “ratio decidendi” and “obiter dicta” are entirely different. Another important thing to be noted is that, the doctrine of precedent is not just a process of matching similarities and differences. Question 3 a. According to contract law, a contract is formed when an offer is accepted, without the addition of a third party. Also there should be some legal binding between the offeror and the offeree. In addition it is clearly stated that an offer needs to be differentiated from an invitation to treat. Whereas an offer will lead to a binding contract with the offeror and offeree on acceptance, an invitation to treat can’t be considered as an offer and it is merely an invitation to offer. Here in this case scenario the sales person did nothing other than responding to the customer queries. Thus it can be stated that he had just responded to Andy by giving the price details and which in turn an invitation to treat. So this can’t be treated as an offer. The case of Partridge v Critenden (1968) 2 All ER 425 is an exemplar of invitation to treat. Hence there is no legal binding between Andy and Electronics Ltd. b. In this case scenario, Brad had revoked the offer laid by the sales person and hence it can be stated that there is no legal relationship between Brad and Electronics Ltd. Here the response of Brad can be treated as a “counter offer” in which he had responded to an offer by another with different terms. Hence this should be considered as an act of destroying the original offer so that it is no longer open for the offeree to accept. The case of Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 Chancery Division illustrates clearly the application of “counter offer”. In this case, the court held that in the context where a counter offer is made, the original offer will be destroyed. While analyzing the case, it is understood that Brad had revoked the offer of sales person and made a counter offer of lesser value. So it can be concluded that there is no contract between Brad and Electronics Ltd. c. From the case context, it is obvious that the sales person had never made an offer to Carl. It is clearly stated in the contract law that the addition of a third party violates the contract even if the offer is accepted by the offeree. Here the sales person had made an offer to Brad and he revoked the offer by making a counter offer. And it is to be mentioned that the sales person had no intention to make an offer with Carl. The Carl entered into the conversation and made an offer to the sales person. And the sales person neither responded to the offer made by Carl. Hence it can be concluded that there is no legal relationship or contract between Carl and Electronics Ltd. d. In this case, a valid offer is made by Electronics Ltd and Dana had accepted the offer. Once an offer is accepted, it can be said that a contract is formed. So in this context a contract is made between Electronics Ltd and Dana. But another major aspect to be considered here is the age of the offeree. Here Diana is a girl of fifteen and she is considered as a minor under the law. So her competency to enter into a contract should be questioned. It is obvious that she is still under parental guidance. Only in certain contexts minor remains liable for contractual obligations like taxes, penalties, military, necessaries. Perhaps the major enforceable minor contracts deal with necessaries. Here these exceptions are not valid and hence there is no legal binding between Dana and Electronics Ltd. Question 4 A contract cannot be made by merely making an agreement. In a broader sense, it can be seen as an exchange of promise between the offeror and offeree. Hence each should receive a benefit and suffer a mischief. This benefit of detriment can be considered as consideration. The case of Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851 illustrates that consideration must be something of worth in the perception of law. According to contract law, for a consideration to be valid, it must be sufficient but need not be adequate. It means that even though the consideration should furnish some advantage to the promise or harm to the promisee, these things don’t have a great deal. The reason for this rule is due to the idea of freedom of contract, which maintains that the parties engaged in the contract should be allowed to make promises that suit them without interference from the courts. In addition mainly considerations are of two types. One is executory consideration which illustrates an exchange of promises to carry out things in the future. Usually bilateral contracts for goods come under this type of consideration. Another is the executed consideration where one party makes a promise in response to an act done by the other. Lush J. in Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Exch 153 referred to consideration as consisting of a detriment to the promisee or a benefit to the promisor. He added as “some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other”. Also the law of consideration is governed several rules. For instance, existing public duties will not be considered to valid consideration. In addition part payment of arrears is not a valid consideration for a guarantee to eschew the balance. Another major rule of consideration suggests that consideration must not be past. This rule elaborates that if one party deliberately carry out an act and the other one then makes a promise, then consideration for the promise is stated to be in past. So past consideration is totally invalid and is not considered to request on a contract. It is important to discuss that there are some exceptions for this rule. The case of Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615) Hob 105 illustrates that past consideration can be considered as a binding if the promise has previously asked the other party to afford goods and services. Providing consideration has considerable worth, the courts will not explore its adequacy. Where the consideration is observed by the law as having some value, it is described as "real" or "sufficient" consideration (The Law Teacher). The courts will not examine the contracts to see if the parties have got equal value. The case of Chappell v Nestle [1960] AC 87 clearly demonstrates the above rules (Ibid). However the laws of consideration are always brainstorming the caliber of judges while delivering judgments. References Adjusters International: The right way to settle claims. [online] available at [accessed 11 July 2013]. The Law offices of Robert E.Gluck. [online] available at [accessed 11 July 2013]. The Law Teacher. Consideration Law. [online] available at [accessed 11 July 2013]. . Read More