Business Law: The Doctrine of Precedent and the Vicarious Liability Law - Assignment Example

?Business Law Table of Contents Question 3 Issue 3 Rule 3 Application 4 Conclusion 4 Relevant Case Example 4 Question 2. Discuss The Doctrine Of Precedent. Give Specific Case Examples Where the Court Has Applied This Legal Principle 6 Question 3 7 a. Is there an agreement between Electronics Ltd and Andy? Explain fully 7 b. Is there an agreement between Electronics Ltd and Brad? Explain fully. 8 c. Is there an agreement between Electronics Ltd and Carl? Explain fully. 9 d. Does Electronics Ltd have a Contract with Dana? Explain fully 11 Relevant Case Example 12 Question 4. For Consideration To Be Valid, It Must Be Sufficient But Need Not Be Adequate. Explain This Rule and Cite Relevant Court Decisions 12 References 15 Question 1 Issue In relation to the case of Freda v Gullies Hotel, it has been observed that Freda has prosecuted legal charges against the management of Gullies Hotel due to the aspect of losing her money and expensive jewelleries from her room within the hotel premise. However, the management of Gullies Hotel has refused to accept the responsibility in lieu of their prior notice that “The Gullies Hotel and its Management would not be held liable for the safety of any valuable left in the guest's room. The Hotel has safe deposit boxes at the reception”. Rule In accordance with the scenario of the case Freda v Gullies Hotel, it has been recognised that the case involves the issue of loss of customer’s wealth within the time period while she was obtaining the organisational services. In this context, the case can be considered under the Vicarious Liability Law under the provision of UK Business Law (Tort Law) (Jones, 2011). The provision under the law constitutes a set of measures which can be taken a victim against the employers while they are found to be responsible for any loss faced by their customer while undertaking their services. The rule involved within the vicarious law includes different principles that ensure to protect the customers from any misconduct by the employers. Therefore, the law can be appropriately applied in order to mitigate the issue presented in the case Fred v Gullies Hotel (Jones, 2011). Application It has been observed that the case of Freda v Gullies Hotel can be applied to the principles and regulations under the Vicarious Liability Law. Therefore, Gullies Hotel can be sued based on significant legal charges made by Freda. The principles and regulations under the vicarious liability ensure to protect the customers in a scenario of losing their invaluable belongings while undertaking the organisational services. In accordance with the strict liability of the law, the management of Gullies is liable for the issue (Jones, 2011). Similar to the stated concern, Freda lost her money and expensive jewelleries during her absence in Gullies Hotel’s room that she booked. Conclusion With reference to the stated law and the case of Freda v Gullies Hotel, it has been observed that the event of missing of customers’ possession is regulated under the provisions of vicarious liability doctrine. Moreover, the prior consciousness related information cannot be applied as the customer was still under that service rendered by the organisation. In accordance with the principle under the Act of vicarious liability, the management of Gullies Hotel can be sued due to their culpable practice. In this regard, Freda can sue the management of Gullies Hotel and take appropriate legal steps (Jones, 2011). Relevant Case Example Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] The case of Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] can be considered as similar to the aforesaid case scenario. In accordance with the case of Olley v Marlborough (1949), it has been witnessed that the claimant found her fur coat theft from the hotel premise of Marlborough. However, in this case, it has also been observed that the defendant party i.e. Marlborough did not mention any prior notice regarding the probability of theft of the customer liabilities from the hotel premise. Therefore, the court had decided to sue the defendant party for the damages of Olley due to the inappropriate safety measures concerning the protection of customer liabilities (E-lawresources.co.uk., n.d.). Question 2. Discuss The Doctrine Of Precedent. Give Specific Case Examples Where the Court Has Applied This Legal Principle ‘Doctrine of Precedent’ depicts that for taking decision of any case, an English Judge would not consider the decisions taken previously related to the similar cases for guidelines. In relation to this, it has been further revealed that judge is bound to take the final decision on the basis of decisions made in previous cases. ‘Doctrine of judicial precedent’ also recognised as ‘stare decisis’ depicts decisions that are on standby (Jones, 2011). In the case study of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, ‘doctrine of judicial precedent’ has been applied. In accordance with the case, it is observed that Mrs Donoghue had gone to a cafe with one of her friends. Her friend brought her ginger beer as well as ice-cream. Ginger beer was in a container that was opaque and could not be visible. She drank some beer and poured the rest in her ice-cream. Consequently, she was shocked to find a rotten snail in her bottle. Furthermore, it was revealed that she suffered private injuries. She then further sued the maker of the ginger beer. Her claim was successful and she won the case. It has been further revealed that decision made in the aforesaid case was on the basis of a previous case i.e. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 (Jones, 2011). Considering the ‘doctrine of judicial precedent’, it is further depicted that it is necessary to determine the basic essence of law. During the process of judgement, concerning judge should reveal his reasons for decision-making process. Furthermore, it has been depicted that the reasons that suit the judge or rather decisions necessary for them further amount to the ‘ratio decidendi’. ‘Ratio decidendi’ mainly forms a part of legal principle that is a ‘binding precedent’. This means that it must be followed in forthcoming cases, if the contents remain the same (E-lawresources.co.uk, n.d.). With regard to binding precedent, there exist various reasoning techniques that the judges prefer to apply for decision making process but they generally prefer to analyse their basic ideas related to the case that can be solved by applying the decision of the previous case. They look upon the factors such as whether the contents are same or not, situations are alike or not. They further look upon the legal factors as well as aspects to reach a decision (Jones, 2011). Question 3 a. Is there an agreement between Electronics Ltd and Andy? Explain fully Issue In accordance with the scenario of the case, it has been observed that no agreement was made between the Andy and the Electronics Ltd. It has been witnessed that Andy called up the store authority in order to purchase a new mobile device with reference to the discount offer published by the organisation. Rule In relation to the case scenario, it has been observed that the customer i.e. Andy phoned the store in accordance with the advertised information regarding the current promotional offer of the organisation. In this context, the case can be included under the provision of UK contract law (Jones, 2011). Apply According to the observation, the organisation i.e. Electronics Ltd. required to clearly mention the amount of its available stock covered by its discount offer. However, due to the inadequate information in the advertisement related to this context, Andy can sue the company under the Act of UK contract law (Jones, 2011). Conclusion The provision under the UK contract law constitutes adequate measures and principles relating to the different promotional activities of an organisation. In this context, the organisation i.e. Electronics Ltd. was required to clearly mention the detailed information concerning the stock availability of its promotional offers within the advertisement. The process can lead the organisation to avoid such contract related issues. b. Is there an agreement between Electronics Ltd and Brad? Explain fully. Issue The case reflects the issue which is merely associated with the inappropriate way of offer and acceptance. It can be stated from the issue that Brad did not confirm any acceptance to the offer made by the organisation which consequentially facilitated the other buyer (Carl) to accept the offer. Rule The provisions under the UK contract law clearly state that a contract can be made through an appropriate offer and acceptance between two individuals. In this context, a contract is valid while the offeree tends to accept the proposal of the offeror through accepting all the stipulated terms and conditions (Jones, 2011; E-lawresources.co.uk, n.d.). Apply Therefore, it can be stated with reference to the case that the inadequate and prompt acceptance of the proposed purchase offer by Brad led to the loss the validity of the offer of purchasing the mobile at the stipulated price. However, the offeror (salesperson) can also be considered as a responsible individual to create a contract related issue. In this context, the UK contract law also states that the offeror is not liable to accept the approval of others (i.e. third party) while making contract with a particular person (Jones, 2011). Conclusion A valid contract involves aspects such as offer and acceptance, consideration, legal terminology as well as intention to build a legal relationship between parties. Thus, it can be stated from the observation of the case that a lack of affirmative response on behalf of Brad by accepting the stipulated figure of sell resulted in him losing the purchase opportunity during the state of deliberation as another buyer (Carl) accepted to purchase the devise in its original stipulated price. c. Is there an agreement between Electronics Ltd and Carl? Explain fully. Issue With due regard to the aforesaid issue of the case between Brad v Electronics Ltd, it has been identified that an issue was raised associated with the offer and acceptance for a Nokia mobile phone which had been advertised for sell by Electronics Ltd. According to the observation of the case, Carl had no any valid agreement with Electronics Ltd. It is determined that the partial refusal of Brad concerning the store’s offer enabled Carl to overheard the offer and sneak in with his own acceptance of the offer made by the company related to the sale of the last stock of Nokia mobile phone. Rule The case of Carl v Electronics Ltd. can be witnessed as an inappropriate form of contract between the salesperson of the store and Carl. In relation to the provisions under the UK contract law, it has been observed that an acceptance can be affirmed when a party or a person responding to the offer agrees to the offering party or person through a lawful written statement or through any legal Act (Jones, 2011). The acceptance of the offer must involve a clear and undisputable statement and must correspond to the person, offered (MacMillan & Stone, 2012). Apply The constitution of the UK contract involves various effective rules and principles which ensure to protect lawful contract among the two parties. However, in relation to the stated case of Carl v Electronics Ltd. it can be stated that the contract has certain issues related with the involvement of third party along with the scenario of inappropriate method of acquiring a contract. Conclusion Therefore, it can be concluded from the above case that the offeror (Electronics Ltd.) can be said to have breached the provisions under the UK contract law if the salesperson agrees to sell the Nokia phone to Carl. In this regard, the offeree (Brad) can take legal measures due to the uninvited involvement of the third party (Carl). d. Does Electronics Ltd have a Contract with Dana? Explain fully Issue With reference to the stated case of Dana v Electronics Ltd., it has been witnessed that Dana made an agreement with the offer of the company i.e. Electronics Ltd. The agreement had been made between the two parties after the fulfilment of agreed terms and conditions laid down by the company. However, during the time of delivery of the product the subsequent day, she refused to accept it stating that she did not want the iPhone any longer. Rule In accordance with the British contract law, Dana is liable to comply with the provision of contract law through the agreed deed which had been made with Electronics Ltd. In this regard, the provisions of UK contract law state that the offeree (i.e. Dana) of any contract is liable to pay a minimum amount in terms of breaching an agreed deed with any offeror i.e. Electronics Ltd (MacMillan & Stone, 2012). Apply In such circumstances, the Electronics Ltd is legally authorised to claim damages related to the contract. As it has been mentioned within the provisions of UK contract law, the innocent party can also make legal charges due to the breach of the contract at the last stage (Jones, 2011). Conclusion Therefore, it can be stated with regard to the aforesaid scenario that the Electronics Ltd has the full authority to register a claim against Dana for a breach of contract. In this type of scenario, prior information conveyed by Dana could have helped her to avoid any claim related issue from the management of Electronics Ltd. Relevant Case Example Hochster v. De La Tour The case of Hochster v. De La Tour can be stated as a similar case in relation to the above mentioned scenarios. According to the case, the defendant (Hochster) and plaintiff (De La Tour) entered into an agreed deed for De La Tour regarding a tour for the date of 1st June. However, the defendant i.e. Hochster decided to breach the contract on 11th May and also refused to compensate the damages of the plaintiff. In this regard, the court decided to prosecute for the damages of the injured party (De La Tour) due to the breach of contract made with the defendant (Hochster). Moreover, the court also allowed the plaintiff party to sue for the damages due to the breach of the contract by the defendant party (Illinois Institute of Technology, n.d.). Question 4. For Consideration To Be Valid, It Must Be Sufficient But Need Not Be Adequate. Explain This Rule and Cite Relevant Court Decisions In accordance with the contract law, consideration mainly represents the bargaining related to contract. Contract between the two parties is based on the conversation of promises. In a valid contract, there exist a promisor and a promisee. In a contract law, each of the parties receives an advantage as well as suffers a disadvantage. Furthermore, it has been revealed that these advantages as well as disadvantages are referred as considerations. Moreover, it is determined that consideration holds a significant value in the eyes of the law. It also depicts that consideration excludes the promise related to love and affection. Concerning consideration, it reflects that promise without the involvement of two parties is considered as a gift. According to the common law, consideration frames an important part in a contract hence, it is important. The rules with regard to consideration entail that it must not be historical. Furthermore, consideration must be satisfactory enough but might not be suitable. The consideration occurred between the parties must move from promisee. It has also been revealed that a current public duty must not be taken under consideration. Moreover, contractual duty does not add up to a valid consideration. It has been depicted that the payment of debt cannot be a valid consideration for the promisee to sacrifice the balance. According to the notion that “Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate”, it reflects that there exist no obligation with respect to consideration that it must be of market value. The courts or judgements are not concerned about the bargaining power of the parties (E-lawresources.co.uk., n.d.). According to the case of Chappel v Nestle [1960] AC 87, it is observed that Nestle used to run a sales promotion. With respect to the sales promotion, it was given that if a person returns three wrappers of chocolate bars as well as a postal order of 1 shilling 6d; he/she would be further sent a record. In addition, the case reveals that Chappel owned a copyright among other copyrights and thus disputed with Nestle with respect to offering related to the record. The decision related to this particular case revealed that wrappers did form a part of the consideration to increase the sales and therefore, there was a contract, thus; Nestle could not sell the record, as the copyright belonged to Chappel (E-lawresources.co.uk., n.d.). References E-lawresources. co.uk., No Date. Donoghue v Stevenson. Tort law. [Online] Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Donoghue-v-Stevenson.php [Accessed July 18, 2013]. E-lawresources.co.uk., No Date. Chappel v Nestle. Contract Law. [Online] Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Chappel-v-Nestle.php [Accessed July 18, 2013]. E-lawresources.co.uk., No Date. Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532. Home. A[Online] Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Olley-v-Marlborough-Court.php [Accessed July 18, 2013]. Illinois Institute of Technology, No Date. Hochster v. De La Tour. Contracts. [Online] Available at: http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rwarner/classes/contracts/excuse/hochster/hochster.htm [Accessed July 18, 2013]. Jones, L., 2011. Introduction to Business Law. Oxford University Press. MacMillan, C. & Stone, R., 2012. Elements of the Law of Contract. University of London. [Online] Available at: http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/sites/default/files/programme_resources/laws/ug_subject_guides/elements_law_contract-subjectguide4chapters.pdf [Accessed July 18, 2013]. Read More