Fundamentals of Business Law - Case Study Example

Law Question One Introduction Administration and enforcement of law as enhanced by the courts is governed by the nature of the cases. The effects this administration by establishing adequate court system. 1 Terry vs. Daley This is a civil wrong since it involves a violation of private rights belonging to an individual in his capacity as an individual. This case owing to the amount involved will be heard in the District Magistrates Courts for the first time. The District Magistrate courts however exercise only original jurisdiction. I.e. they can only hear cases for the first time. On appeal, the case can be heard either in a higher District Magistrates Court or the Resident Magistrates courts. Joe's Case Joe's case is criminal in nature. It is a crime because it is an act, default or conduct prejudicial to the community. According to the law, the perpetrator is often deserves punishment. Owing to the nature of the item stolen by Joe i.e. a packet of photocopying paper will determine where the case will be heard. This case cannot be heard in a higher court. It can best be referred to the District Magistrate's courts. And because it is a criminal wrong, Joe would likely either be imprisoned for a given number of years or fined. He can also be punished by way of corporal punishment. Alf v. skimpy This is a civil case but which relates between employees and employers. The case will be heard in an industrial court which is an administrative tribunal i.e. a body given the power of an administrative nature. This case involves commission of the tort of negligence because the employer has not taken reasonable steps to guard the machines. And in the process, it has caused injury. The judge of the industrial court can appoint two assessors from a panel of assessors appointed by the concerned minister. One assessor represents the employer and the other represents the employees. But the assessors only give an opinion. The decision of the courts is final and the result of the judgement is called an award. Del's Case This is a criminal offence. In fact Del has committed an economic crime by failing to pay large sums of value added tax. And since the amount of money involved is huge, the case will be heard by the High Court. If Del is of the opinion that he has not been given a fair trial, then he can appeal to the court of appeal. Del is likely to be fined i.e. pay the tax added plus penalty. Prima facie, this can appear to be a civil case. But whether the employer has perpetrated any civil wrong will depend on the agreement made between Millie and her employer. Be it as it may, she has a right to sue. This case would be heard by the industrial court. It is the industrial court that hears cases between employees and their employers. Based on the judge's opinion, she might be paid as her colleagues. Question Two Whether Cules can recover compensation from Humpty or Alec the rules of law that govern this case are whether the essential elements of negligence can be proofed in order for an action for negligence to be maintained. In order for Giles to successfully sue and recover compensation from Humpty or Alec he must prove the following. i. That they owed him a duty of care. ii. That Humpy and Alec breached legal duty. iii. That he Giles suffered injury as a result of the breach of duty. 2 Humpy and Alec owe no duty of care to Giles. Humpty was to provide a loan to Giles and had no duty over Gile's chicken business. On the other hand, Alec was only approached to give advice concerning the loan and not on whether it was appropriate to purchase the machine. In Burwill v. Young a house wife was alighting from a tramcar. A motor cyclist passing on the other side of the tram collided with a motor car, the noise pf the collision resulting in the plaintiff suffering nervous shock and subsequent miscarriage. She brought an action of negligence on the motor cyclist personal representative. The action failed and it was held that at the time of the collision, the plaintiff was not there therefore he did not owe her any duty of care. Another rule that governs negligence is factual causation. For Humpty and Alec to be taken as being negligent, it must be shown that indeed they were the cause of either the disruption of the packing process or loss of profits. What caused the disruption of the packing process and subsequent smashing of thousands of eggs was in fact a faulty of the electric cable. They (Humpty and Alec) could not have reasonable foreseen that their actions of giving loan and giving out advice on loan respectively could cause the damage. The negligence here is too remote and hence he cannot be compensated by the duo. This rule of foreseenability of damage was shown in the case of Caparo Industries av. Dickman. In this case, the defendants, auditors of a company, fidelity plc. Audited and reported on the results of the company. This information was relied upon by the plaintiffs (investors) to acquire the company shares. It turned out afterwards that the company performance was dismal. It was held that there was duty of care the defendant had towards the plaintiffs. 3 Whether Cable Ltd. can compensate Giles for the loss The rule of there being a duty if care, breach of the duty and subsequent injury, also apply to determine whether Cable is likely to be compensated for loss suffered. Cable Ltd owes Giles a duty of care to ensure that the electricity cables are safely fixed and free form fault at all times. It appears that this duty of care was breached as the safety of the cable was in question. A breach of duty can only be established if the plaintiff was a neighbour is a person whom one would have in contemplation when he was performing an act. There will be a breach of duty of care on the part of Cable Ltd. of a reasonable person under the circumstances would have been injured as a result of the cables. It doesn't matter whether or not the defendant himself would have had such foreseenability. Injury For the plaintiff to succeed in negligence, he must prove injury loss. And this loss must be directly attributable to the breach of duty of care. Giles suffered loss but the question is to what extent he is eligible to be compensated. 4 Damages Damages will depend on what Cable ltd. Company's breach of duty's affects would reasonably cause. It could be reasonably foreseen that the fault of the cables could result in the damage of the egg packing machine. But that Giles could suffer economic loss as a result of extra interest could not be reasonably foreseen by Cable Ltd. Co. Galile can therefore recover compensation from cable Ltd. in form of damages. But the courts can also award him punitive damages in addition to exemplary damages. 5 Conclusion Cases of negligence are difficult to determine. In some cases, both the plaintiff and the defendant contribute in bringing out the negligence and the question is how much of the whole loss should the plaintiff be compensated. The damages recoverable are to be reduced to such an extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the plaintiff's share in the responsibility for the damage. From the above case, it could have been apparent that the workers also contributed to the tampering and subsequent disruption of the machines. But the above principles and rules would guide the judge on the destiny of the case. References Emerson R. W (2003): Business Law, 5th Edn, Sydney, Educational Publisher Emanuel, S. L. (2004): Fundamental of Business Law, 4th Edn, Sydney, Educational Publisher Penrose, R (2005): Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, Sydney, Longman Publisher Jertz, A., Miller L. R, (2004): Fundamentals of Business Law, 3rd Edn, London, Macmillan Publisher Von Bar, C. (2000): The Common European Law of Torts, Vol.2: London, Oxford University Press Read More