Max vs Charley - Brunos Restaurant - Essay Example

Analysis on Case Law Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Max vs. Charley: Case on Bruno’s Restaurant Charlie and Harley do not have any legal ground to take action against Max for the failure of their business. This is because the case involving Max and the two guys is not based on any legal terms and it cannot be ascertained that it is Max who contributed to the failure of the business through his actions as outlined in the law of tort. This case represents a scenario where the plaintiff may wish to seek a legal action against the defendant on the ground that the information that may have been provided to him was not varied or misleading in that matter and something that has resulted to the loss that has been incurred1. The law on tort and tortious liability is best suited to explain how the case will go and if at all Charley and Harley have a case against Max. First of all, the information that was sought from Max was on friendly terms and that it was not binding to the two parties that the information given should be accurate and not misleading. On the same regard, Max was not acting in the capacity of a consultant so that he can be blamed for giving information that is not accurate. The law on tort is very comprehensive and that it seeks to address on what grounds that the plaintiff can seek legal support to get compensation on damage incurred as a result of the actions of the other party. A tort in business law according to is used to refer to a civil wrong that is committed other than the claim for the breach of contract and for which action may be sought for damages that may arise2. A tort is also referred as an act or omission by the defendant that has an infringement on the plaintiff interest and upon which he can sue for compensation from the defendant3. In trying to issues related to harm that is caused by defendant, provides a number of remedies. The contemporary law on tort operates on the remedies that are available for the harm that has been caused by the defendant as a result of their conduct to the plaintiff. In this case, Charley and Harley are acting like the plaintiffs and their argument is that, Max’s information that Bruno’s business seemed to be very lucrative and that could start generating profits in the first 12 months of operation under new ownership. This information was given on the basis of the view Max had about the business based on how he understands the business based on the previous information but not what will happen in the future. The law on tort seeks to address various remedies that are available to the infringed interests and which not necessary be monetary compensation. This is because damage may take various forms which include physical damage to the property, damage of financial interests and even damage to the reputation to the business4. In the case of Max, Charley and Harley, the damage that has taken place include the loss of the financial ground to Bruno’s business. However, according to the law on tort, it is not always automatic that the person that suffers the loss or damage in that matter is entitled to compensation. This is because first and foremost there must be an agreement between the involved parties that certain obligations must be met by each party and that for sure that there is loss that has shifted from the offender to the suffer. Further, according to the Australian jurisdictions, it is not always guaranteed that compensation is possible in all situations where the plaintiff has managed to prove that damage has been done and there is a relationship with the actions of the offender5. This is because the statutory jurisdictions in Australia have outlined those civil liabilities that can be compensated and those that cannot. Some of the losses that a plaintiff may suffer and that may not get any remedy according to prevailing jurisdictions include such cases that are considered unnecessary and that may not attract the court attention, any damage that may have been caused by accident or an act that was not willful or that has no negligence, where is sufficient defense for the defendant especially by proving that the plaintiff was very much aware of the risk involved with a given move and yet went further to take that risk and finally in a situation where there may be an issue with national security6. However, with the case of Max, Charley and Harley and the Bruno’s business case, can be related to the argument that compensation for harm or damage that has been caused that has direct relationship with the actions of the defendant. In this case there is no direct connection that Max had contributed to the loss that had been incurred by the duo. This is because failure of the business that in the past has been very lucrative can be attributed to poor management and business strategy that Charley and Harley might have employed. On the same line, it cannot be ascertained that Max willingly gave misleading information about the business to his friend Charley. This is because Max might have given the information based on what he knew all about Bruno’s as his competitor in the region and in the hotel industry and might not have been informed by internal business records and activities7. In addition, liability which is an element of the law of tort outlines when the law is likely to provide or not to provide remedy for the damage that has been suffered by the plaintiff. For example in a situation where the plaintiff has suffered the liability and the damage can actually be established, the plaintiff is entitled to seek for a remedy for the infringement that has been caused to his interests. Actually it’s from this point that the essence of the tort of low can be established. Even though the law of tort is concerned with accidental injury that has been caused to an individual either physical or mental and property under certain qualifications and provisions, the general approach is founded on two main principles which include an act or omission that is being committed by the defendant and that infringes on rights of the plaintiff and causes some damage on him and also the interference which causes the action that results into damages that is nearly equal to the loss that has been caused to the plaintiff8. In general, the law on tort seeks to protect individual rights which include absolute rights and qualified rights. While the absolute rights entails direct interference on the plaintiff and actionable per se, the qualified rights that are protected by law on tort include direct interference on an individual or property which is a result of negligence and nuisance as well damage to the plaintiff9. In reference to the case of Max, his friend Charley and Harley on Bruno’s restaurant, there is no any direct interference that can be seen to have been caused by Max to the business. It is with this regard it can be argued that, even though Charley may view Max as somebody who might have misled him, has no ground to sue him and seek compensation for damage for any action that has been caused to the business. In conclusion, it is important to highlight that the case of Max and Harley about Bruno’s business is just one example of many business cases that have led into the enactment and strengthening the law on tort so as to ensure that justices is always done both for the defendant and the plaintiff. While the law on tort seeks to protect the rights of an individual and property from damage caused by another party by imposing compensation under such circumstances, it maintains that there must be a relationship between the actions of the defendant and the damage that might have been infringed on the plaintiff. With this regard therefore, the failure of the business may be as a result of poor management. Reference Bolzonello, L. (2012). The ‘validity exception’ in the CISG and remedies for mistake in domestic contract law: preemption and concurrence. Social science research network May 15, 2012. Available online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2121714 Devenney, J. and Howard, J. (2012). Contract, Tort and Restitution Statutes, 4th Edn. London: Routlegde. Gibson, A. & Fraser, D. (2012). Business Law, 6th Edition, Sydney: Pearson. Kodilinye, G. (2009). Commonwealth Caribbean Law, 4th Edn. Routledge, Cavendish. Pam, S. and Stuhmcke, A. (2012). Australian Principles of Tort Law, 3rd Edition, Sydney: Federation Press. Style, C. and Balthasar, S. (2012). Enforcing international arbitral awards: pitfalls and strategies. Dispute resolution international, 6(1), p. 3-15. Turner, C. (2011). Key cases: Contract Law. London: Routlegde Witt, J.F. (2007). Contingency, Immanence, and Inevitability in the Law of Accidents, Journal of Tort Law, Vol. 1, p. 3-27. Read More