Was There a Contractual Obligation That Existed That Created Legal Intention - Assignment Example

Question 1: Issue: Was there a contractual obligation that existed that created legal intention? Law: The tests to be undertaken in this case are to determine the premises of in contractual obligation and elements of a legally binding contract. Contractual obligation is based on: 1. An agreement between entities 2. There must be an offer in which there are terms to be agreed on. 3. A contract is based on mutual accord to carry out a certain activity for a specified mutual benefit that exists between the parties. 4. The contractual obligation is undertaken in an open dealing by observing and adhering to commercial standards that qualify to be termed as reasonable For a contact to be legally binding, the following elements also apply: 1. There must be an offer 2. Acceptance of the offer 3. A contract has a timeline 4. An intention to create legal relations Authority: Todd v Nicol [1957] SASR 72 Application: The tests are not satisfied. The underpinning aspect of a contract is that the parties concerned should have the intention of the contract to be legally binding (Keating 2001, p.3). However, this does not compel the parties to express the intention. In such a case, an objective test can be carried out to find out whether parties’ to the agreement had the intention to be legally binding; this test can be done by a reasonable individual. This can be used to gauge of the intention of the parties. In social or domestic agreements, the common assumption is that they did not intent to create legal relations. Though a sister, this transaction related to business. In business agreements, the intention that is normally created is that there is a legal relation created, nevertheless, this can be rebuttable by consideration of the different elements of a contract and the premises under which the contact occurred. The ordering of the fish was done as a good brother, there was no legal intention of the order to be binding. The act can be argued to have been a voluntary undertaking, which means that there is no duty that can be imposed to the sister. Otherwise, where the two parties agree, a duty can be imposed on the parties involved hence making the contract legally binding. In such a happening irrespective of the consent there is the requirement to carry on good faith. Conclusion: There is no contractual relationship with the sister as there was no offer and acceptance of the offer. Question 2: Issue 1: Was there an enforceable contract between Fundi and the owner (me)? Law: The tests to be carried are whether a contract existed based on he elements of a contract. The elements of contract include: 1. There exists an offer in which a definite promise that is binding is made based on given conditions 2. There must be communication of the offer to the intended party 3. Communication is either in written form, oral, or by conduct 4. Termination of the offer can be made before the acceptance of the offer. 5. Binding agreement is realised when the offeree accepts the offer (Deakins, Angus ad Basil 2003, p.2). Authority : Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847 Application: The tests are satisfied Based on the above elements of a contract, the case of Fundi satisfies to be a binding contract. There was an offer, which he (Fundi) accepted on time. The offer was communicated to him by the offerer, though at first he was reluctant, Fundi accepted t the offer and agreed to stay extra time for him to benefit from the $150. The revocation of the offer was done already after he had accepted which made that the offer was still binding. Note, Fundi had already accepted to the terms of contract. Conclusion: Based on these facts and elements of contract, it is evident that there was enforceable contract that existed. Issue 2: Is there defence that can be used to guarantee Fundi the damages suffered. Law: There is the defence that Fundi suffered damages due to the offer and that the owner is liable for the damages. Authority: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847 Application: Based on the fact that there existed a binding agreement between the owner and Fundi, each party was supposed to ensure that they carry on their duties as expected. Having entered into a contract, each party had a duty to play which forms the basis of the contractual obligation. It is arguable that under this case, though there were no customers to be served on the time agreed between the parties, there was already a time frame which formed the basis of the contract. Under the law, there exists the principle of faithful in carrying contractual obligations which entails acting fairly in which the contractual obligation is undertaken in an open dealing by observing and adhering to commercial standards that qualify to be termed as reasonable (Keating 2001, p.4). The contractual obligations in this case were justifiable expectations of Fundi in relation to benefits. This denotes the importance of ‘coming clean’ that could be used against the owner for not having absconding the promise. In a precedence case, Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v. Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd, the Interfoto accused Stiletto of holding transparencies for longer duration than agreed; hence, the judges had to determine the justifiable expectations of the contract. The court upheld that most civil law systems and majority of legal systems recognises that parties should act in good faith. In this case, the court denoted the importance of ‘coming clean” and playing fair as the essence of open dealing. Similarly, the revocation of the offer was not acting ‘clean’ and resulted to damages to Fundi due to the money he had already spent and the extra one-hour he spent. Conclusion: Fundi can instigate a legal process to prove that the management deemed as the owner did not owner the contractual obligation. Question 3: Issue 1: Is there a case of negligence on management (me) in failure to keep the premise safe and was the duty to ensure safety in the premise breached. Law: An organization is liable to negligence if an act that relates to the organisation can be proved to be of negligence. The tests to be applied in the case concerns whether there was negligence and violation of duty by either party. 1. Actions of negligence are not intentional, they are perceived to be accidental 2. Negligence obligation applies even if there were no a contract between the parties. 3. Negligence applies in both a tort, criminal and civil wrongs. 4. There exists a duty to ensure that liability resulting from negligence is avoided (Deakins, Angus ad Basil 2003, p.3). Application: The rests satisfies negligence To prove that Lua has a case against me, there are important elements of the negligence that must be analyzed in order to substantiate the claim. The first element in the negligence that can be considered in a lawsuit is that the defendant (me) owed a duty to the plaintiff, Lua (Gibson and Douglas 2012, p.13). By the basis, that negligence obligation applies even if there was no contract between the parties, Lua can have an action against me. The second element that Lua can consider is whether I violated my duty. It is the duty of management of any organisation to ensure safety standards are maintained and thus Lua can argue that I violated my duties that led to the damages. Conclusion: Lua has an action against the management (me) due to negligence of failure to clean the floor. Issue 2: Was the slippery floor the absolute cause of the accident bearing in mind that Lua was intoxicated by alcohol. Law: Could a sober person have fallen and sustained the injuries? The tests to be conducted include: 1. Likelihood of the accident occurring 2. Professional conduct of the employee (Lua). Application Even though there was a duty to protect the people in the premises from any safety risk, the act of caution also applies to the people in the premises. Lua must prove that there were no other circumstantial issues inherent in him that led to the accident. The issue of negligence also applies to the Lua as an employee of the restaurant. In determining the applicability of negligence, there is the element of foreseeable by a reasonable person (Walmsley and Zipser 2007, p. 15). The reasonable includes a person of sound mind who has some responsibility in the restaurant. In this case, Lua had a responsibility to foresee the water on the floor and clean it before the accident happened. It is thus applies that he contributed to the negligence and hence his accident. In addition, Lua was intoxicated with alcohol that means he negated his professional conduct that could have been a circumstantial proof to the accident. Conclusion: I can thus base my argument on having no powers over the recklessness of the employee who does not observe the professional conduct that compromises his attentiveness in the work. References Deakins, S, Angus, J. and Basil. 2003. Tort Law. Oxford University Press, pp. 2-4. Gibson, A. and Douglas, F. 2012. Negligence Elements: Duty, Breach, Causation, Scope of Liability and Damages. Pearson, pp.12-19. Keating, G. 2001. A social Contract Conception of the Tort Law of Accidents. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 2-7. Walmsley, S. and Zipser, B. 2007. Professional Liability in Australia. Lawbook Co, pp. 12-23. Case laws Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847 Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v. Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd Todd v Nicol [1957] SASR 72 Read More