Law of Torts Assignment Help

Law of Torts Assignment Help

Law of Torts Assignment Help

This is the solution of law of torts assignment help in which we discuss about common  law of jurisdiction civil wrong and based upon the loss or harm in legal liabilities for person

Question 1

Scenario A

Issue: Two friends Phil and Jay were returning from their favorite pub, The Crazy Family.  As phil was very tired and Jay was very much eager to see his wife Goria, they avoided the pedestrian path going directly to the Jay’s apartment and instead took the Freeway which had a warning sign reading “Danger ! Do Not Walk Along The Freeway”. Both Phil and jay ignored the warning sign and started walking along the freeway as it will take only 25 minutes for them to reach the Jay’s apartment, which otherwise would have taken them one and a half hour otherwise. While walking on the Freeway jay was talking with his wife on his mobile phone and was distracted by the voice of his voice. This shows that there was negligence on the part of the Phil and jay while ignoring the warning sign and walking carelessly on the Freeway. At the same time Claire’s car came in from the bend in the freeway, as Claire was took her eyes from the road to find her favorite lipstick from her bar, she failed to maneuver her car in the bend and it struck the cars barrier and ploughs into the pedestrian due to which jay suffered injuries. As Jay suffers from the Brittle Bone Syndrome (Ontogenesis Imperfect) he broke his limbs in the accident.

Law: This case is related to the Law of torts. Law of torts generally refers to the law related to the civil wrong and is based upon the principal that a person his responsible hi/her acts and the omissions while dealing with the other individuals. Negligence is one of the torts among the different types of tort and in the given scenario of the case it is advisable to apply the negligence. The main intent behind the application of the tort is to provide help to an individual who is suffering because of the action of the other individual. The factor behind the application of the law of tort is that the loss incurred by the individual may be temporary or permanent but it should be an economic loss. Justice Atkins had laid down the modern theory of law of torts in respect to the famous case of DonoghuevStevenson in year 1932. This case was related to raising a concern about the rights of the consumer law related to the harm that has been caused due to the product that has been used by the consumer. The decision that was given in that particular case has put the onus upon the manufacturer of the product to take special care of the special needs. This rule described the extension of the duty of care. Hence it can be said that the Negligence was an important area of the Torts. As per the law of Tort, negligence may be defined as omission from performing any act, which will be performed by a responsible person in that particular situation or performing any act which a reasonable prudent person will not perform in a particular situation. The different essentials that have to be taken care of while filing for any claim under the act of negligence against any individual are illustrated as follows:

  • There should exist a duty of care
  • There should be a failure on the part of the individual for performing their duties.
  • There has been injuries caused due to the breach of duty by an  individual and the cause is also not remote.

From the case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills, it was established that it important to establish the force ability of the loss for making the claim. It has to be established that the carelessness on the part of the defendant has caused the plaintiff or claimant loss or harm.

Application: Here in this case the law of application of the law of negligence will based upon the contributory negligence. The contributory negligence is applicable in this case because the plaintiff has failed to conduct certain standard acts which were considered important for the protection of the plaintiff and this conduct cooperates with the negligence of the defendant in causing the harm to the Plaintiff.  Here in this Phil and jay knew it was dangerous to walk on the freeway but they ignored the warning and started walking on the freeway and while walking Lay was busy talking on his mobile phones which caused him distraction.  On the other hand Claire clearly saw the bending on the freeway but was busy searching her purse and failed to maneuver her car which caused the accident that injured Jay, this shows negligence on the part of Claire. Thus, it is clear that as Claire was unable to perform her duties, there was a negligence on her which caused injuries to jay. Thus a provision of the Law of Tort is applicable in this case.

Conclusion:

From the above case it is clear that there was negligence on the part of Claire to perform her duties and Jay can claim for the losses and injuries he suffered due to the negligence of Claire, but there was also negligence on the part of Jay and Phil by avoiding the warning sign. Thus this case might be treated as case of contributory negligence by the judge. There are chances that as defense against the contributory negligence, Jay might appeal this case as “last Clear Chance” as the defendant could have avoided the causing the injury.

Scenario B

Issue: Due to the traffic accident that occurred in the above scenario there was traffic jam because of which another driver Cameron is struck in the traffic. Cameron is an electrician because of which he is not able to reach to his next repair work on time which was to fix the refrigerator at Lily’s restaurant. Due to the delay in the repairing of the refrigerator Lily has to dispose of $6,500 worth of Wagyu Beef which has gone bad.  

Law: This case is related to the tort of negligence and particularly falls under the ambit of the contributory negligence. Though there are three different essentials that have to be taken care of while filing for any claim under the act of negligence against any individual are illustrated as follows:

  • There should exist a duty of care
  • There should be a failure on the part of the individual for performing their duties.
  • There has been injuries caused due to the breach of duty by an individual and the cause is also not remote.

Application:

In the above case scenario it can be said that though there was delay on the part of the electrician to perform his duty, but it was not his fault as there was traffic jam due to the accident which was not his fault. Also there was negligence on the part of the restaurant owner to not make alternative arrangement as the refrigerator was already not working and by making alternative arrangement the restaurant owner could have prevented the loss. Thus the law of contributory negligence is applicable in this case.

Conclusion:

From the above case it can be said though there was delay on the part of the electrician but it can considered as a breach of his duties as he was not responsible for the delay and there was also negligence on the part of the restaurant owner to not make an alternate arrangement for storing the beef . Hence both are equally responsible for performing their duties to minimize the loss and hence claims will be granted under the Comparative negligence law.

Question 2:

Scenario A

Issue: Mitchell holds a meeting with Pepper salt to discuss a proposal to sell the 3D printers that are just received by Mitchell. The meeting took place on September 20th.  After the meeting Pepper asks Mitchell to send the details in the afternoon on which Mitchell sends a letter to offer 503D printers at the price of $6450 each to deliver him by 10th of October. Pepper relies to the mail and accepts the offer made by Mitchell and sends a letter confirming the same on 25th September. But on 27th Mitchell cancels the order of Pepper by saying that Pepper has taken a lot of time and he is selling those printers to his cousins as he has not received any confirmation from Pepper for the offer he has made. The letter of the Pepper reaches to Mitchell on September 29th.

Law: When a party to a contract has breached a contract it will be important to determine whether the breach has been of condition or of a warranty. The court relates how important the terms in the contract for the aggrieved party.  In case of the breach of contract parties try to enforce their terms and try to recover money from the other party for the financial losses that are caused due to the alleged breach. Under the law there are three main remedies for a breach of contract which are: damages, specific performance and cancellation or restitution. The defenses against the breach of contract can be made on the basis of the number of vitiating factors which involves some king of unfair dealing by one of the parties. These factors are: Misleading or the deceptive conduct, mistake, duress, undue influence, unconscionable conduct, unfair terms and illegality. Thus the law applicable in this case is contractual liability.

Application: Since in the above case scenario Mitchell has made an offer and he has righyt the revoke the offer at any time till he has not received the letter or assurance from the other party about the acceptance of his offer. In case of The Guardians of the Navan Union v. McLoughlin,the defendant was held to be entitled to revoke his offer as the plantiff’s acceptance was not communicated to him. 

Conclusion:

Thus in this case there is no contractual liability for Mitchell towards Pepper Salt.

Scenario B

Issue: In this situation Joe asked Mitchell for two new printers for business. On this enquiry Mitchell says that he will provide printers to Joe for free. Though later Mitchell changes his mind and refuses to provide the printers to Joe. But Joe had already hired 3D printing experts as he was about to receive the printers from Mitchell.

Law: When a party to a contract has breached a contract it will be important to determine whether the breach has been of condition or of a warranty. The court relates how important the terms in the contract for the aggrieved party.  In case of the breach of contract parties try to enforce their terms and try to recover money from the other party for the financial losses that are caused due to the alleged breach. Under the law there are three main remedies for a breach of contract which are: damages, specific performance and cancellation or restitution. The defenses against the breach of contract can be made on the basis of the number of vitiating factors which involves some king of unfair dealing by one of the parties. These factors are: Misleading or the deceptive conduct, mistake, duress, undue influence, unconscionable conduct, unfair terms and illegality. Thus the law applicable in this case is contractual liability.

Application: In this case there is loss that has been incurred by Joe due to the revocation of the offer that has been made by Mitchell.  This falls under the Law of contractual liability as the offer was already accepted and the necessary arrangements were made by Joe to use the printer.

Conclusion

In this case there is a contractual liability of Mitchell and he has to compensate Joe for the losses that have been incurred by Joe, due to the revocation of the contract.

References

  • Aalto-Setala, I. (2010). Finnish Competition Act to be Streamlined. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 1(6), pp.511-513.
  • Australiancontractlaw.com. (2016). Australian Contract Law | Julie Clarke. [online] Available at: http://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law.html [Accessed 26 Mar. 2016].
  • Rorke, F. (1996). The Application of the Consumer Protection Provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) to Universities. QUT Law Review, 12(0).