International Business Law - Example

International Business Law Report Name Institution Affiliation Date Has Henrietta any claim against the firm for mental distress and upset? Introduction In this case, Henrietta engages a firm of solicitors with an aim of obtaining an injunction aimed at preventing a former male friend from visiting her and making a nuisance of himself. The firm gives the responsibility of handling the matter to an unqualified litigation clerk. Unfortunately due to the clerk’s incompetence, Henrietta is subjected to further embarrassment for an 11 month period. The issue is whether the contract between the firm of solicitor’s firm and Henrietta of obtaining the injunction has been breached. In addition, is there negligence on the part of the firm that causes the breach? If this is the case, does Henrietta have any claim against the firm for mental distress and upset? In deciding the case, it is worth noting that Henrietta is already suffering embarrassment from her former male friend at the time she goes to seek the services of the solicitor firm. It should be noted that the sole aim for wanting to seek an injunction against the former male friend is because the friend is causing embarrassment to Henrietta by making nonsense of himself whenever he visits him. Thus, it is most likely that Henrietta is already suffering from mental distress and upset at the time she decides to seek for an injunction against her friend visiting her premises so that she can be at peace. This is the reason she engages the firm of solicitors. Unfortunately the firm of solicitors doesn’t take the engagement seriously by considering Henrietta’s plight. This is because Henrietta’s issue is assigned to an unqualified litigation clerk and owing to the clerk’s incompetence; Henrietta does not obtain the injunction and hence continues to suffer embarrassment for eleven months (Evans, 2004). It would be correct to conclude that should the litigation firm handled the matter with the seriousness it deserved given Henrietta’s plight; she would not have suffered embarrassment for that long since she would have obtained the injunction barring the former male friend from visiting her. However, whether or not Henrietta has any claim against the firm for the resultant mental distress and upset is a matter of law and will depend on whether there has been breach of contract between the two parties and whether this has been caused by the firm’s negligence. It will also depend on how courts have treated similar cases in the past. The facts of the case indicate that a contract to secure injunction against Henrietta’s male friend visiting her exists. However, the duty to perform the contract is not performed owing to the fact that it is issued to an incompetent clerk. In other words, there has been a breach of contract on the part of the litigation firm for failing to perform its part of the bargain as per the contract. The result of this is Henrietta suffering embarrassment for 11 months resulting to mental distress and upset for 11 more months. The question is whether the distress and the resultant distress could be a recoverable claim in a court of law. In Farley v Skinner (2001), the House of Lords established a general position regarding distress. In the case, the claimant had instructed a surveyor to conduct a survey of a property so as to establish the extent of noise pollution from the nearby airport. However, the surveyor incorrectly advised the claimant resulting in the claimant suing the surveyor for negligence and breach of contract. In deciding the case, the court held that the defendant was not liable for distress claim resulting from the breach of contract unless the contract was to provide pleasure, peace, relaxation, freedom from molestation or peace of mind with the actions of the defendant providing the contrally. The court further held that the defendant could be liable for distress if the stress resulted from the breach of contract which was foreseeable. The House of Lords also affirmed the principle of losses that arise out of distress as being not recoverable in negligence claims but the claimant could be compensated as a result of the breach of contract. Thus, it can be concluded that a claim for mental distress and upset will be successful if there is a breach of contract and the contract in question intended to provide peace, pleasure, relaxation, freedom of molestation and peace of mind (Holmes, 2016). Further, the distress and upset should have resulted directly from the breach of contract and was foreseeable. The above principles were held in Watts’s v Morrow (1991) where it was stated that a contract breaker is not in general liable for any distress, frustration, displeasure, anxiety, tension, vexation or aggravation that breach of contract causes to the innocent party. This was also held in Johnson, V Gore Wood & Co where it was stated that contract breaking is to be treated as an incident of commercial life where players in the game are expected to meet with mental fortitude. Both the cases have exceptions to the extent that where the contract was aimed at providing pleasure, peace of mind, relaxation and freedom from molestation, damages would be awarded where the contract is not provided or here contrally results are achieved. In the case of Henrietta, it has been established that the breach of contract has occurred owing to the firm’s decision to give the matter to an incompetent litigation clerk resulting in Henrietta suffering distress and upset for further eleven months. It should be noted that based on the legal principles and cases discussed above, Henrietta cannot be entitled to claim for damages out of the mere fact that a breach of contract resulting from negligence has occurred. Thus, it should be investigated whether Henrietta’s case meets the exceptions identified above. In other words, was the contract aimed at providing pleasure, peace of mind, relaxation and freedom from molestation? It should be noted that the sole purpose of establishing the contract between the two parties was so that an injunction would be obtained against Henrietta’s friend. The injunction would prevent the friend from visiting Henrietta since his visits were causing Henrietta embarrassment by making nuisance of himself. The result of the embarrassment is the distress and upset that she was suffering. However, the litigation firm assigns the issue to an incompetent litigation clerk (Gibson, 2014). The result of this is the fact that Henrietta does not obtain the injunction for the eleven months and hence continues to suffer embarrassment during this period as his male friend continues coming and making nuisance of himself . The result of this is the distress and embarrassment for Henrietta. It would thus be argued that the contract between Henrietta and the litigation firm was aimed at providing peace of mind, relaxation and freedom from molestation to Henrietta that would result from her former male friend stopping to visit her home. However, since the contract is breached and hence does not happen, Henrietta does not find the peace of mind, relaxation and freedom from molestation she expected from the company obtaining injunction against her former friend on her behalf. This means the second principle of the exception is fulfilled. In other words, Henrietta’s Further, the distress and upset resulted directly from the breach of contract and was foreseeable. This is because should the contract not have been breached, she would have found peace of mind and freedom from molestation as a result of his former friend being prevented from visiting her and making nuisance of himself. It was also clear to the litigation firm that the injunction was necessary to achieve the peace she wanted and that failure to obtain the injunction would have resulted in contrally results (www.parliament.uk, 2016). It is also to be noted that the sole aim of contract was not commercial but that of providing freedom from distress and upset (Lawsociety.com.au, 2016). Thus it cannot be argued that she would have expected to meet with mental distress with the contract being breached. It is also to be noted that the first condition for the exception as identified above has been fulfilled with the claim of breach of contract being verified. Conclusion This paper has laid down the legal principled pertaining to the treatment of distress and inconveniences that result from breach of a contract. It has been established that though such distress and inconvenience is generally not allowed as a claim in law, there are exceptions to this. This include the contract in breach being solely intended for intended to provide peace, pleasure, relaxation, freedom of molestation and peace of mind and that the breach of contract resulted in the innocent party suffering the distress and inconvenience or results contrally to the purpose of the contract. In this case, it has been established that Henrietta’s contract was solely aimed at providing peace, pleasure, and relaxation, freedom of molestation and peace of mind. It has also been established that the breach resulted in contrally results by her continuing to suffer embarrassment for eleven more months as a result of continued visits by the former friend and hence distress and upset. Thus, Henrietta has a claim against the litigation firm for breaching the contract that would have caused her peace thus resulting to her distress and upset. References: Farley v Skinner (2001) UK HL 49. Watts v Morrow (1991) 1 WLR 1421. Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (2001) 2 WLR 72. Evans, J2004, Spoiled holidays: Damages for disappointment or distress, Retrieved on 10th May 2016, from, http://researchonline.nd.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=law_article Holmes, R2016, Mental distress damages for breach of contract, Retrieved on 10th May 2016, from; http://www.victoria.ac.nz/law/research/publications/vuwlr/prev-issues/pdf/vol-35- 2004/issue-3/holmes.pdf www.parliament.uk, 2016, Judgments-Farley v. Skinner, Retrieved on 10th May 2016, from; http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/farley-3.htm Gibson, D2014, Business law, Retrieved on 10th May 2016, from; https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=NTfiBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA566&lpg=PA566&dq=H as+Henriett a+any+claim+against+the+firm+for+mental+distress+and+upset%3F&source=bl&ots=T cv5AN- 6oT&sig=thkLbUXMp_wJCtXnwI4P5dawwbc&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage &q=Has%20 Henrietta%20any%20claim%20against%20the%20firm%20for%20mental%20distress% 20and%20upset%3F&f=false Lawsociety.com.au, 2016, avoiding a breach of the professional conduct and practice rules, Retrieved on 10th May 2016, from; https://www.lawsociety.com.au/cs/groups/public/documents/internetcontent/026321.pdf Read More