The main concern here is to opine of the liabilities that would arise for the parties present in accordance with the tort of negligence.
There are three essential conditions that need to be fulfilled for the tort of negligence to be established. Firstly, it is imperative that a duty to care must arise on the part of the defendant intended for the plaintiff. Secondly, owing to failure of the defendant to take reasonable safeguards, there has to be breach of duty and thirdly, owing to the duty breach, damage is suffered by the plaintiff which is linked to the breach of duty.( Pendleton & Vickery, 2005).
In order to ascertain if the duty of care arises or not, the “neighbor test” is recommended by the honorable court. This involves deciding whether it would be reasonable to assume that an entity would be impacted by the choice of the decision maker in relation to indulging or refraining from carrying out a particular act (Davenport & Parker, 2014). It is essential that through the action or inaction of the activity doer the interest of the neighbor could have been potentially adversely impacted and to present the same the activity doer must take care of the neighbor against foreseeable dangers (Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 at 580). Any damage that is not of foreseeable nature lies outside the ambit of negligence tort as highlighted in the decision taken in Dovuro Pty Limited v Wilkins [2003] HCA 51 (Harvey, 2009)
In order to discharge the duty to care, it is pivotal that the defendant on its part must take all reasonable steps to prevent harm being caused to the plaintiff. The level of care that needs to be extended would depend on the chances of the plaintiff being damaged and the severity of the damages that would be incurred. Thus, the precise definition of reasonable would be determined by the case situation and would be determined by the court (Gibson & Fraser, 2014). Only in cases where reasonable measures have not been undertaken would there be a breach of duty (Latimer, 2016).
It is another vital element as the concerned plaintiff has to suffer damages in order to sue the defendant for negligence. The definition of damages in the tort of negligence tends to be quite wide and includes emotional distress and mental stress as valid form of damages (Harvey, 2009). It is also critical that the damages suffered must be linked to the duty of care breach which may be proven without doubt if it can be proved that damage would not have been caused had there been no duty beach (Young v Charles Church Ltd [1997] The Times LR May 1, CA). Any damage which could not have been mitigated even if the duty breach did not occur would not lead to tort of negligence being established and cannot cover damages from defendant (Lindgren, 2011).
Also, the plaintiff on its part must take all the necessary and possible safeguard to prevent any damage. In cases where it is proved that the plaintiff also conducted in a negligent manner, then this would amount to the occurrence of a phenomena called as contributory negligence which the defendant can use as a safeguard as indicated in the Astley v Austrust Limited (2000) 197 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 6 case (Gibson & Fraser, 2014).
Cyrus – A duty to care does exist on him as he gave bikes to the two friends. It is imperative that the bikes should not be faulty as the same may jeopardize the safety of the riders. The bikes provided did not have the front light and one of them also lacked a tail light. Cyrus does not inform the two friends about the bike and advice that they should not drive on the freeway and instead prefer a cycleway. Had the two friends listened to the advice offered by Cyrus, then the damage caused could have been averted to a very large extent.
But Olivia and Fitz did not listen to the advice and also ignored the various warnings erected on the road but despite reading these warnings , they decided to ignore the same. The end result was the accident with Huck’s car as a result of which Olivia suffered heavily. The contributory negligence in the behavior of the two friends is apparent as despite being advised otherwise and presence of requisite sign boards, the two decided to move to the freeway. Besides, while bike diving, Olivia is also entertaining phone which tends to further enhance the overall risk. Hence, the responsibility of the injuries sustained by the Olivia would not fall on Cyrus as the absence of lights was not the reason for the happening of the accident and even if it had been lights present then also accident would have most likely occurred only.
Huck – Any person who uses the road for car driving must ensure that reasonable steps are undertaken in order to prevent any damage to the fellow drivers and other people using the roads. In discharging this duty to care towards the other drivers, it is pivotal that the attention of the person concerned should always be on the traffic ahead and should not be directed at mobile phone that too which the car is taking a turn. Because of this act of Huck, the plaintiff in the form of Olivia and potentially Fitz has been damaged. Therefore Huck has liability under tort of negligence though the same can be managed by hinting at contributory risk as the friends were driving on the freeway instead of the dedicated lane.
Quinn – Quinn tends to be a electrician by profession and hence she has a duty to care towards others. Due to the traffic jam, Quinn could not reach the client on time resulting in loss of perishable items. Hence, Quinne has no responsibility towards paying the client for her loss as delay was on account of the accident which was clearly unforeseeable.
Conclusion
The tort of negligence is established under the case of Huck while the others need not lead to development of negligence tort.
The aim is to find whether Cyrus has formed a contract with Rowan or not and to extend a legal advice to Cyrus about his contractual liabilities.
The two parties can enter into legal relationship when one party sends the offer and other party accepts the offer and sends acceptance letter to offeror. In contract law, when the offeror has directed an offer to offeree and the offeree has received it, then the offer is considered to be legal. However, the enforceability of acceptance depends on the type of media used for communication (Harvey, 2009). It means, when offeree has used electronic media such as mail, fax, SMS to send acceptance, then it would considered to be enforceable only when the offeror has received it (Latimer, 2016). While, in case of traditional mode of communication i.e. through post the acceptance would be termed as enforceable when the offeree has posted the acceptance letter into the post mail box. The testimony of this understanding is given in the verdict of Adams v. Lindsell (1818) 106 ER 25 case (McKendrick, 2003).
In this case, it is apparent that Cyrus has directed an offer to sell the four John deere 125 Ride on mowers with a price of $3,450 for each unit. Rowan accepts the offer and sends the letter of acceptance to him using the postal media. The time when Rowan has posted the letter into the postal mail box that moment only, the acceptance is termed as lawful. Hence, it can be seen that a valid offer and valid acceptance is present which results in the formation of enforceable contract between the Cyrus and Rowan. Further, the action of Cyrus to cancel the offer after the enforceability of acceptance would not affect the formation of contract because the parties are already entered into legal relation. Also, if Cyrus is willing to revoke the offer then he must inform Rowan before the enforceability of acceptance is incurred.
Conclusion
Cyrus and Rowan has entered into contractual relation and hence, Cyrus has obligations to perform the respective responsibilities with the agreed consideration amount. Further, if Cyrus fails to complete the liabilities then the Rowan has rights to demand for damages or can sue Cyrus for breaching the contractual duties.
The central issue is to discuss whether James and Cyrus have formed a contract or not and to offer opinion to Cyrus regarding his legal liabilities in this case.
Doctrine of promissory estoppel is an imperative ruling of contract law, which defends the rights of innocent party. When there is no intent or lack of interest on behalf of one party to enter into contractual relation with other party but eventually they are said to be in legal relation due to the applicability of this rules. If one party has extended a promise to other party and, also informed the other party regarding the promise, then the offeree can make new contracts. Moreover, if the other party has made successive steps and actions on the account of promise , then in such cases the offer is validated (Gibson & Fraser, 2014). Further, if the promisor has denied completing the promise then the other party has the legal rights under this promissory the party is forced to fulfil the promise or can demand for damages. The leading case is Walton’s Stores Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 case where the party has claimed for the damages on the account of the breach of promise made by promisor (Taylor & Taylor, 2015).
Cyrus has wanted to purchasea shop in Blue Mountain to start a coffee shop. Further, James who has already leased a shop in Blue Mountain has promised to issue the shop on lease to Cyrus to start a coffee shop. He has also sent a letter containing the information that once the present lease is completed he would extend the shop for lease to him. Based on the promise extended by Janes, Cyrus had purchased and conducted various tasks necessary to start a business by considering the promise that he would get a shop in Blue Mountain by James. However, James has denied extending shop to Cyrus. In such case, it is apparent that doctrine of promissory estoppel is applied here and James cannot deny fulfilling the promise because.
Conclusion
Cyrus and James are in the legal relation and hence, James has to complete the extended promise or Cyrus can demand for the respective damages if James is not completing the promise.
The main issue in the present case is to comment whether there is any contractual liability is present on behalf of Cyrus and based on which can he demand for the extended money from Mr. Fallacious.
On the account of donation in the process of charity, it is essential that one party must extend an offer that must be accepted by the other party. However, it is essential that there should not have any fraudulent misrepresentation or constraints on behalf of the donating party. Further, a valid consideration must be present between the parties for the enactment of a contract (Andrews, 2011). If the party who makes donations does not get anything in return to the donation then also presence of consideration of consideration and no contract would enact between parties. Further, adequacy of consideration is not important as highlighted in the verdict given in Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87 case (Carter, 2012).
Cyrus has extended a donation of $320,000 to Mr. Fallacious in a vow to poverty. However after almost six months, he met David and fel in love with him and hence decided to settle down with him. Now in this circumstance demanding the money back from a charitable organization would be difficult especially because of the time elapsed since the enactment of the contract, In the given case, there is no presence of any force or duress being used. Also while donating money, self satisfaction is a good enough consideration for involvement in enacting donation of money which cannot be asked back.
Conclusion
There would be a contract formed between the parties and thus, Cyrus is not liable to demand the money from Mr. Fallacious.
References
Andrews, Neil, (2011). Contract Law (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, J. (2012). Contract Act in Australia (3rd ed.). Sydney: LexisNexis Publications
Davenport, S. & Parker, D. (2014). Business and Law in Australia (2nd ed.). Sydney:LexisNexis Publications.
Gibson, A. & Fraser, D. (2014). Business Law (8th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Publications.
Harvey, C. (2009). Foundations of Australian law (2nd ed.). Prahran, Vic.: Tilde University Press.
Latimer, P. (2016). Australian Business Law CC (1st ed.). Sydney: LexisNexis Study Guide.
Lindgren, KE. (2011).Vermeesch and Lindgren’s Business Law of Australia (12th ed.). Sydney: LexisNexis Publications.
McKendrick, E. (2003). Contract Law(5th ed.). Basingstoke:Palgrave
Pendleton, W. & Vickery, N. (2005). Australian business law: principles and applications (5th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Publications.
Taylor, R. & Taylor, D. (2015). Contract Law (5th ed.). London: Oxford University Press.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download