Small cases - Coursework Example

Small Cases Negligence can be defined as failing to behave/exercise rational care so as to avert causing loss or injury to another individual. The ‘behaviour’ generally comprises of actions, although it can also comprise of omissions when there is some duty to take action. There are 5 elements that are needed for Anna to institute a prima facie case of negligence these include proving there was supermarket’s duty of care, breaching that duty, cause in fact, proximate cause and damages. In addition, Anna needs to prove existence of a duty (legal) to exercise rational care by the supermarket; failure of supermarket to exercise reasonable/rational care, that she was physically injured/harmed due to negligent behaviour of the supermarket; that she suffered physical injury/harm in the form of real damages; in addition to proximate cause, which demonstrates that the injury/harm is within the range of liability (Twomey & Jennings, 2013).

Anna definitely has a claim and for the merits of this case to be evaluated adequately then the following facts ought to be known; there should be a dependable witness of sound mind as well as doctor’s report outlining the damages she suffered, that should include the date and time of injury.Yes an agreement written on the napkin can constitute a valid contract if it has all the requirements of a valid contract such as presence of an offer by one party and acceptance by the other, consideration that will be paid for the promise agreed upon, legal capacity of the involved parties, as well as genuine intention to create legal relations.

Bob should win the lawsuit since clearly he was not in capacity to make a valid contract because he and Carl had been drinking and were intoxicated while making the contract. There was also no genuine offer coming from Bob for him to sell his racket. Clearly there was no meeting of minds since there was no same understanding of the sale agreement. Bob thought it was a joke and laughed it off whereas Carl took it seriously and even wrote the agreement on a napkin. The court’s decision regarding the adequacy of the consideration is likely to be that there was no adequate consideration since the market value of the racket is far much higher than the offered value.

Thus if Carl were to win the lawsuit, then it means Bob cannot afterward file a suit claiming the shortfall (Twomey & Jennings, 2013).Works citedTwomey David, Jennings Marianne. Business Law and The Legal Environment. New York: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2013.