Analysis of Supercool Co. Partnership Firm - Case Study Example

Write a report to Supercool advising the partnership on their chances of successfully defending claims from john and Ethel in connection with the barfurniture and injuries respectively. REPORT TO SUPERCOOL : Brief Facts : As far as I understand Supercool Co. is a Partnership Firm with Susan, Ahmed and Barry as it's partners. The primary business of Supercool is to manufacture a specific lager beer called 'Supercool Lager' which the firm sells on a regional basis. On the 15th of November,2008, the partnership agreed with John, the manager of Inky Town F.C. to manufacture 5000 bottles of premium lager commemorating the club's 100 years in the football league. Under the terms of the contract Supercool would provide a large glass show case for six months, which would be both stocked and maintained by employees of Supercool in Inky's bar located at the football ground. The contract also contained a clause that Supercool would not be liable for any loss or damage caused during stocking or maintainence of the show case by the staff of supercool. On the 30th of November 2008, Nick, now an employee of Supercool, made a delivery of the special lager to the bar at the football ground, and commenced to clean the glass case before stocking it. Unfortunately he stumbled and fell as he was cleaning the plate glass, causing several panes to break and crash to the ground. Falling glass caused damage to some bar furniture. One piece of broken glass caused a gash to the shin and right foot of Ethel, a member of the bar staff. Ethel didn't seek medical attention immediately, and, a week later the wound became badly infected, causing a permanent restriction of movement in her foot. John is now demanding compensation for damage caused to the bar area, and Ethel is claiming against Supercool for her injuries. Supercool have referred John to the clause in the contract, and have denied any liability to Ethel for her injuries on the basis that it was Nick and not the partnership who caused the injury and that, in any event, her failure to seek medical help immediately, has relieved anyone from legal liability for her injuries. ISSUES : 1. The Question of Compensation to John for the damage caused to the bar area. 2. The claim of Ethel against Supercool for the injuries suffered by her. The Question of Compensation to John for the damage caused to the bar area. I would advise Supercool that they have a bright chance to defend the claim from John. As per the facts of the case on the 15th of November,2008, the partnership agreed with John, the manager of Inky Town F.C. to manufacture 5000 bottles of premium lager commemorating the club's 100 years in the football league. Under the terms of the contract Supercool would provide a large glass show case for six months, which would be both stocked and maintained by employees of Supercool in Inky's bar located at the football ground. The contract also contained a clause that Supercool would not be liable for any loss or damage caused during stocking or maintainence of the show case by the staff of supercool. According to the basic ingredients of the contract act there was a perfectly valid contract between John as the manger of Inky Town F.C. and Supercool. There was an agreement between John and Supercool and later on the agreement culminated in to a full fledged contract after both the parties coming on an agreement on the terms of the contract. There was meeting of minds between John and Supercool in the same sense and no ambiguity regarding anything. The facts of the following case Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.(1893)I.Q.B.256 amply demonstrate the principles as to offer, acceptance "Contract - Offer by Advertisement - Performance of Condition in Advertisement - Notification of Acceptance of Offer - Wager - Insurance - 8 9 Vict. c. 109 - 14 Geo. 3, c. 48, s. 2. The defendants, the proprietors of a medical preparation called "The Carbolic Smoke Ball," issued an advertisement in which they offered to pay 100 to any person who contracted the influenza after having used one of their smoke balls in a specified manner and for a specified period. The plaintiff on the faith of the advertisement bought one of the balls, and used it in the manner and for the period specified, but nevertheless contracted the influenza. It was held that Held, affirming the decision of Hawkins, J., that the above facts established a contract by the defendants to pay the plaintiff 100 in the event which had happened; that such contract was neither a contract by way of wagering within 8 9 Vict. c. 109, nor a policy within 14 Geo. 3, c. 48, s. 2; and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover." (westlaw) In Felthouse vs. Bindley(1862)6L.T.157 it was held that An acceptance of offer will not give rise to a binding agreement unless it is expressly communicated to the individual who makes the offer. The general principles of contract are also displayed by Fisher v. Bell and Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemicals Ltd. (1952)2 Q.B.795. These cases illustrate and lay down the basic principles of contract law as to offer and acceptance and the case of There was no revocation of offer or the acceptance and the acceptance was not given under any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, mistake as to law or mistake as to fact. When all these ingredients were fulfilled then both the parties culminated a valid contract themselves. In a valid contract both the parties will be bound by the stipulations of the contract entered in to. There was no breach of condition by the Supercool so as to make the contract voidable at the other party's instance. There was a very clear cut clause in the contract that "Supercool would not be liable for any loss or damage caused during stocking or maintainence of the show case by the staff of supercool " It is exactly what happened at the premises of Inky's bar for which John is now demanding compensation. His claim for compensation will not succeed. The employee of Supercool wasn't working outside his brief and was adhering to the job assigned to him of stocking or maintenance of the showcase. He stumbled and fell while cleaning the plate glass which resulted in breaking of glass and causing of some damage to the bar furniture. The damage caused by the employee has been adequately covered in the terms of the contract and Supercool needn't worry about it. I will again say that the claim of John will not succeed under any circumstances and if Inky's bar try to break the contract because of this incident then Supercool can sue them for damages for the breach of contract. The claim of Ethel against Supercool for the injuries suffered by her: Ethel is a member of the bar staff team and an employee of the Inky Town F.C. She suffered some injuries due to the breakage of the glass and by the falling of Nick on 30th November,2008. Initially she didn't paid any attention to her injuries which later on developed in to an infection and caused a permanent restriction of movement in her foot. She has claimed against Supercool for the injuries that she has suffered. I will say that even the claim of Ethel against Supercool can be defended and turned on his head. First of all she is an employee of Inky Town and according to the labour regulations she must have an insurance against such kind of accidents. Her employer through the insurance company should compensate her first as the injury suffered by her occurred at her place of work while discharging her duties. In case she has claimed and must have been given medical attention and compensation by her employer and the insurance company, she cannot in that case claim damages for the same injury twice. Secondly, She is bound by the terms of her employment and must adhere to them. Her employer Inky Town F.C. has entered in to a contract with SuperCool and that contract contained a specific clause that Supercool would not be liable for any loss or damage caused during stocking or maintenance of the show case by the staff of supercool. Since the contract stipulated clearly that Supercool will not be responsible for any kind of damage or loss while performing the maintenance of the show case, it obviously cannot be held responsible for the resultant injury caused to Ethel. This kind of thing can never be forseen and it is the remoteness of damage that makes the claim of Ethel infructous or null. In H.Parsons(Livestock)Ltd. vs. Uttley Ingham & Co. Ltd(1977)3W.L.R. dealt with some delicate aspects of the remoteness of damage under contract law. It concerns the interpretation of the principles espoused on and their relationship with the principles governing remoteness of damage in tort. In Sayers vs. Harlow Urban District Council(1958)1WLR623, it was held that "Even when the defendant's breach of contract is the factual cause of the claimant's loss, an award of damages may be denied on the ground that the breach was not the legal cause of that loss" Under the light of these cases this fact has been clearly laid down that the remoteness of loss or damage plays a important part in claiming damages. The test of reasonable foresight also goes in favour of Supercool and this principle has been laid down in Rigby vs. Hewit(1850)5Ex240. Secondly, it can be argued by SuperCool without prejudice to the earlier contentions that negligence played a very vital role in the present state of Ethel. If she would have been vigilant enough and taken adequate and proper medical attention on time then in that case her condition would not have been deteriorated to such an extent. Ethel also cannot prove that Supercool owed an duty of care towards her. This principle has been laid down in Palsgaraaf vs. Long Island railboard co.(1928)284N.Y.339:162N.E.99. Finally Ethel will miserably fail to attribute any deliberate act of negligence on part of Nick, the employee of Supercool that he failed to take adequate precautions while performing his job, though that thing has also been covered comprehensively under the clause of the contract between supercool and Inky F.C. Ethel will fail to attribute any mensrea on part of Nick and transferring the responsibility on Supercool to pay her damages. REFERENCE 1. www.westlaw.co.uk 2. Law of Contract, R.K. Bangia, ALA 3. Law of Torts, R.K. Bangia, ALA 4. Law of Contract, Steve Lawrence, Butterworths Read More