This can be illustrated in the case of Thompson v. Robinson Gun makers (1955)2 here D purchased a standard Vanguard car from P and later P refused to accept the delivery of it. P's profit on the sale would have been 61 pounds, but D argued that they were not liable for this amount, since the profit would still be made when the car was sold to another customer. The court rejected this argument since the supply of this model exceeded the demand. Therefo0re if P had found another customer he could have sold a car to him in addition to selling a car to D.
In this case where Roger is the driver of Reptiles-To-Go he is acting as a servant of the master, therefore any act arising from him during the course of his duty the master will be held liable .This means that Arthur who was hit by Roger will have to sue the master (Reptile-To-Go) for injury he sustained both in person and property. The rule here is that a master is held liable for the damages of his servants that are committed within the course of his employment .The tortuous act must be a wrongful way of doing what the employee is employed to do.
In Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co.1862 3, a bus driver whilst racing a bus caused on the accident .his employees hold liable because he was doing what he was employed to do i.e. driving a bus although in an improper way (K Abbott, K. Ward man .Business law, 7th edition 2001)
Contrast Beard v. London general omnibus Co. (1900)4 a bus conductor attempted to turn a bus around at the end of its route and in doing so he caused an accident. His employers were not held liable since he was employed only to collect fares and not drive buses.
Therefore the employer will always be held liable for the acts of the servant even if the employee acts contrary to clear instructions. Rose v. plenty 19765
On the facts of case where Katie bought some nut that should have been suitable for feeding her pet pot -bellied pig Percy and they eventually died from the said nuts fall under sale by description. In this section the seller will be held responsible for any of the loss caused by the product in which he /she sold to the buyer and where the buyer relies on the seller's knowledge and skill .It is the duty of the seller to offer the buyer the best product that meets his/her description failure to which he will