Contracts forming - Case Study Example

X agrees to sell a particular horse to Y on expiry of 8 days.The horse was delivered on the trail for 8 days.However the particular horse died on the third day without any fault of either seller or buyer.The agreement becomes void . X agrees to sell 10 tonnes of potatoes to Y.X sowed sufficient land to grow morethan 10 potatoes.But any fault of X a disease attacked the crop and only about 8 tonnes of potatoes could be given. The agreement becomes void. In this case, the contracted good ie 5 cans of paint is already perished before it is passed to Mr.

Brennen without the fault of either parties.So this case falls under sec 11 of SGA.Hence Mr.Brennen can not seek damages from Arkwreight. Sometimes it may happen that the employer or superior will be responsible for the acts of their subordinates or in broader sense the responsibility of the third party that had the right,abilityor duty to control the activates of the violator.ie, employers are vicariously liable for negligent acts of their employees in the course of the employment.But it is to be remembered that for an act to be considered within the course of the employm.

Howell vs Coupland** X agrees to sell 10 tonnes of potatoes to Y.X sowed sufficient land to grow morethan 10 potatoes.But any fault of X a disease attacked the crop and only about 8 tonnes of potatoes could be given. The agreement becomes void. In this case, the contracted good ie 5 cans of paint is already perished before it is passed to Mr.Brennen without the fault of either parties.So this case falls under sec 11 of SGA.Hence Mr.Brennen can not seek damages from Arkwreight.

B. whether Freda is entittiled to get damages Before proceeding to discuss whether Arkwreight is liable to pay off the damages to Freda, we will explore the concept of 'vicarious liability','negligence', and 'duty of care' under Tort Law. Sometimes it may happen that the employer or superior will be responsible for the acts of their subordinates or in broader sense the responsibility of the third party that had the right,abilityor duty to control the activates of the violator.

ie, employers are vicariously liable for negligent acts of their employees in the course of the employment.But it is to be *Eplick vs Barness 15.11,Buisiness Law,Tulsian,P,C** Howell vs Coupland 15.12,BuisinessLaw,Tulsian P.C -3-remembered that for an act to be considered within the course of the employment ,it must either be authorized or be so connected with an authorized act and that it can be considered a mode,of performing it.*** Whenever we discusss the vicarious liability of an