Discussion
Case Study relates whether a contract exists between Steven and Marie.
Steven fixes two price quotation for hosting banquets.
He mistakenly sent a wrong price quotation to Marie for banquet booking and Marie accepted the offer. Later, Steven refused to host claiming the respective amount when Marie countered that under legal obligation Steven was bound to deliver.
Johnny was the owner of the Lame Duck Restaurant. He appointed Steven for better marketing and sales of his restaurant.
Steven and Johnny decided to host banquets at two different price tags, one for birthday parties and other for alcohol parties. Marie who made a booking for a corporate party, was mistakenly sent a wrong price quotation and in return she accepted the offer. After discovering, Steven refused to host the banquet until the respective price was paid for the party as the quotation was sent in error. Though Marie insisted that there is a lawful contract between them and under such legal obligation Steven was bound to deliver.
Post three months, Steven noticed excellent skillful work of his restaurant’s gardener who manages all his work within 2 hours and wasted the remaining 8 hours. Steven and Johnny decided to sub-contract him to Marie who would need him to maintain a garden rooftop apartment. Residents were asked to avoid entering the rooftop pre lunch time due to garden work via a notice on their respective mailboxes . A resident still comes to smoke a cigarette and accidentally slips over on a palm leaf which was freshly cut by the gardener causing severe injury. He had to be hospitalized and later that evening he complains Johnny. The resident claims compensation for his injury, medical expenses and for the money lost on an event which he was supposed to go for the from Lame Duck Restaurant under negligence.
Conclusion
As depicted from the case study the issue relates firstly, whether a contract exists between Steven and Marie on the grounds of hosting the banquet at the promised price quotation as it was under a legal contract comprising offer and acceptance on both ends.
Secondly, whether there was negligence on Lame Duck Restaurants part, on such accident which caused to one of the resident during such course of employment, where the gardener being an employee of the restaurant was sub-contracted to maintain the rooftop garden.
Ans. There is valid contract between Johnny and Marie as Steven who was an employee under Johnny promised to host the banquet on a corporate party for Marie at a pre-determined price and under a lawful offer and acceptance on both ends. There is a clause under the English Contract Law which states that agreements are considered to be contracts only when they are made between parties who are competent to contracts and are free from any coercion or undue influence. Also there has to be lawful consideration along with an object which is lawful, failing to which the agreement is deemed to be void. Here we can find two competent parties, Steven and Marie with free consent to form a valid contract, in addition to a lawful consideration which is the pre-determined price quotation set between Steven and Marie, a lawful object is also present which is the booking made for the banquet to host a corporate party and lastly communication between offeror and offeree is also present which completes the offer and the acceptance between them. Thus basic essentials of contracts are fulfilled making it a lawful contract and legally binding upon the offeror to perform the contract. Under the English Contract Law a valid contract can either be expressed or implied, oral or written.
Advice on Contract Law
Ans. Yes, there exists a mistake on part of Steven because he accidentally quoted the birthday occasion price instead of corporate party price to Marie who made a booking for a corporate party on the new year eve. English contract law recognizes three types of mistakes in a contract namely: Common mistake, Mutual mistake, Unilateral mistake. Here we find it’s a unilateral mistake wherein only one party is mistaken, further Unilateral mistake can be subdivided into: Mistake as to terms of contract and mistake as to identity. Mistake as to terms of contract satisfies the case study here. There was a mistake in value while the contract was made initially and mistake in value is considered one of the terms in a contract. As in ‘Hartog v. Colin & Shields [1939] 3All ER 566’, the contract was void for mistake. Thus this is a void contract as to a mistake. English contract law also recognises a doctrine: Inter absentes. It states a contract which is made over telephonic conversation or via online and not with the help of physical presence of parties to the contract. As in ‘Cundy v Lindsay [1878] 3 App Cas 459’. The case study over here relates the contract was made over telephone with Marie, thus satisfies this provision too.
Ans. The provisions of English Contract law is applicable here because the essentials of contract are fulfilled as per the case study, which further obliges Johnny the owner of Lame Duck Restaurant to perform the contract at the initial quoted price which his employee Steven had communicated to Marie for hosting the banquet. Steven was in the course of employment under Johnny when such legal contract with Marie was undertaken. Thus Johnny is vicariously liable for the promise which his employee Steven has undertaken on behalf of Johnny and so must perform to avoid breach of the said contract else Marie can sue Johnny and his Lame Duck Restaurant for breach of contract as per the provisions defined in the contract law. In breach of contract either one or both the parties failed to perform an act which was already promised in the contract. It occurs:
- When one party makes a refusal to perform a promise which agreed under the contract
- Does something which is void under the contract, or
- Prevents the other party from performing its obligations under the contract.
Under the English contract law, compensation for breach of contract states when a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.
Advice on Negligence
Ans. Under tort of negligence the basic elements are as follows:
- Duty of care- Minimum duty of care has to be taken to avoid tort of negligence which defendant owes to plaintiff.
- Breach of Duty- Defendant is liable if the defendant breaches the minimum duty of care towards the plaintiff.
- Causation- If the breach of duty causes injury to the plaintiff.
- Damages- If the breach of duty causes injury then the damages for such injury has to be borne by the defendant.
Here a proper notice was placed beforehand in each of the resident’s mailboxes that due to some garden work residents are requested not to access the rooftop till lunchtime. This proves that adequate duty of care was taken for the sake of the residents so that a mishap is not occurred. A resident only breached the notice and came up to smoke in-spite of knowing that he was not supposed to come up during the course of the work. This clearly proves that Johnny was not responsible for the acts of his gardener though he was in the course of employment under Johnny at that time because they fulfilled the basic duty of care which they owe towards the residents by placing a notice which restricted the entry of resident’s in the rooftop while garden work was in progress. As decided in Stanley v Powell, the plaintiff and the defendant were members of the shooting party, went for pheasant shooting. The defendant fired at a pheasant, but the shot injured the plaintiff after it glanced off an oak tree. The defendant was not held liable as because it was an inevitable accident.
Ans. Under vicarious liability in law of torts, an employer is liable for the actions of his employee if such employee is under the scope of his employer’s employment. In this case Johnny sub-contracted the gardener with Marie, so Johnny forms an employer-employee relationship with his gardener where Johnny can be held liable for the acts of his gardener because his gardener was under the scope of his employment when such accident happened. Vicarious liability of a sub-contractor negligence states that a defendant can be held liable for vicarious liability for those acts that are committed by his own officers or employees who are employed by him and not for those acts of the officers and employees who are employed as an independent contractor (Sub-Contractor). So, it proves that Marie cannot be held liable anyway over here because she only took the gardener from Johnny as an independent contractor without forming an employer/ employee relationship.
Ans. As this case is not holding Johnny liable for tort of negligence due to the reasons stated above, thus Johnny need not pay any medical expense or the money the plaintiff lost by cancelling a holiday. Johnny is not liable for negligence because he took adequate/ sufficient duty of care for the residents before his gardener started to work by placing a notice to each individual resident’s mailboxes which stated entry to the rooftop was restricted due to the garden work which was in progress. The resident who was the plaintiff came at his own wish and discretion in-spite of the statutory warning and slipped causing injury to himself.
- Sources: https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Esso-Petroleum-v-Mardon.php
- https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/uk-contract-law.php
- https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Hochster-v-De-la-Tour.php
- https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Cundy-v-Lindsey.php
- https://e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Addis-v-Gramophone.php
- https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Contract-remedies.php
- https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Tort-law.php
- https://lawgovpol.com/case-study-donoghue-v-stevenson-1932/
- https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Negligence.php
- https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/medical-law/tort-of-negligence-in-english-legal-system-law-essay.php
- https://www.casecheck.co.uk/alison-bellingham-others-v-james-todd-2011-csoh-74-5th-may-2011.html
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lister_v_Hesley_Hall_Ltd
- https://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=151509
- https://www.inbrief.co.uk/claim-preparations/the-law-of-tort/.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
